701. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183979 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:49 am

epeeist,






The Daily Mail is a tabloid, but what they said happened to be true. Like if Bin Laden told me the earth was round, I would have to agree. Benefits fraud is a problem? Understatement of the new century. There was a former terrorist (plane hijacker) living on $150,000 per year... in government benefits. Then he got a job at Heathrow checking bags. No further comment.


If people understood what their taxes were used for, and that these should be called "dues" and would help instill a sense of ownership. Also the government and its employees (read: incompetent, condescending bureaucrats) should be in the service of the people and fucking act like it. They work for the people of the country that elected them and/or pay their salary. Once these issues get rectified, people will be more encouraged to be positive participants in society. And if this were the case, tax evaders could be punished more severely.

702. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183975 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:44 am

MaxD,




I have long said (on this forum) that corporate welfare is the antithesis of liberty. It is anti-libertarian, anti-American, and down right stupid.


Read the Manifesto, read the part on marriage where he claims that marriage is Bourgeouis form of communalism, which makes little to know sense. The Manifesto should be online for viewing.

703. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183970 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:37 am

masterslrig,






What an unctuous little comment.


But I would love to know how you know it is the truth? I am also a seeker of truth, so any information you have on the matter would be much appreciated!


Thanks.

704. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183965 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:24 am

epeeist,






Do you see the irony. What is the point of telling me people abuse the system, which was my point, then claiming, that although true, my sources are bad. If the source is right, the source is right. The point is...... People, givent the opportunity to be indolent, will often take it. Now institutionalize and mandate the care for these social remoras and you have a dysfunctional state...



Also I want to point out (to the general audience) that Marx advocated a communal form of marriage. Laughable.

705. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183963 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:16 am

MaxD,







To the point of unions. I didn't mean to say that they should be banned, but most of them in their current form, are trash. The problem is that workers should be given economic interest in the companies. It is in the interest of the company to treat employees well. Rewards work better than punishments in terms of motivation. For instance a bonus system for production levels, make 1,000 cars in a month, get $500 tacked on your salary. Etc... Or better yet help employees become part owners of the company. Treating people well IS good business.




You failed to make the necessary distinction... In capitalist countries (ones with true libertarian values)...

cheaters, embezzelars and tax evaders, or companies that need a bail out

These people are punished. People are sent to prison all the time for these crimes. I deal with the SEC in my business. They not only punish the transgressors, they often catch the innocent in the wide net they cast.

But in a socialist country, the state would be FORCED to take care of people who simply refused to work. A capitalist country is not FORCED to allow criminals to run wild. In fact almost all capitalist countries have moved in the other direction.

706. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183960 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:07 am

epeeist,






I don't have a problem with unions, if they act in the interest of the greater society as well as their constituents. But once they became organizations dedicated to securing employment for the stupid and incompetent, they lost their value. I would be happy to look at a functioning union. Labor has the right to organize, it does not have the right to use this organization to destroy the education system, or the economy at large.


(*EDIT* Like I said, people must be protected from centralizations of power.)

Did I claim it was all rainbows? You need to stop getting your information on the UK from the likes of the Daily Mail by the way.

And as for defrauding the government for a living, it happens at both ends. We do have people abusing the benefits system. But we also have people evading taxes as well.

First we need to stop calling them taxes, and start calling them "dues". Like a country club, you have to pay for upkeep in order to be a member.

And you are telling me that people don't abuse the welfare system in the UK? I am very glad to hear that, not one person ever sat on welfare and continued having children? That never happened, not once? That is good to know.



Some more comments for Marx worshippers, and I include D'Arcy because he has repeatedly quoted Marx... unfortunately he didn' quote the following, also from Marx:

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

-On the Jewish Question
Karl Marx

Found it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_marx#Marx_and_antisemitism


What a foul and odious man. To grovel at the feet of such a disgusting worldview, one defined by nasty and grossly incorrect stereotypes. One defined by bitter hatred of human progress. How would one trust the reasoning of a mind that claimed that "The Jew" worships money. This is the intellectual doyen of socialism? No thanks.


A bitter and desultory form of pathetic anti-liberty.

707. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183949 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 9:23 am

epeeist,







Unions once served a purpose. Now the only thing they do is destroy the economy and ensure that absolute fucking morons continue to educate children.


And the UK isn't all fluffy raimbows. You have people there who defraud the government for a living, having child afer child collecting "benefits", going socialist would make a society of this form of human scum.



I don't understand why socialists seek to reward indolence. Fucking work hard or take a hike. And if you absolutely cannot contribute to your own well being then the government can help you. But if people aren't expected to be responsible for their own life, then they aren't responsible. I do get sick of whiny socialists throwing around absolutely ridiculous theories. I have grown weary of this discussion, let's boil this theory of D'Arcy's down.... "In a perfect world, full of perfect people, where everyone agrees, we can have socialism." Fucking great, what a contribution to political thought.



Have a look at this (sarcastic) piece of legislation, maybe it will hit some chords with those who wish to actually do something like this.


http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6271/gover049.html

708. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

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

elephant,





Unions make demands, they make demands that get quite lofty. They refuse to let non-union people work in certain industries, and use a monopoly on labor to beat companies over the head (socialism is basically a big, violent, labour monopoly) and bring them to their knees. What companies end up doing is exporting the work elsewhere, which in the end causes the US to lose jobs, since those go overseas.


The worst union on the face of the planet is the California Teachers' Union. It is now, in California, impossible to fire a teacher for poor performance, or any other form of incompetence. And the result? Poor education.


They are thuggish rackets that exploit monopolies (don't socialists complain about monopolies? Oh wait they are HUGE hypocites, so never mind) to make demands that end up hurting the very people they claim to represent.

709. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183940 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 8:33 am

Trade Unions are thuggish extortion rackets.

710. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183938 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 8:23 am

Bonzai,








Yes, people's perceptions can be changed. But I never said we should comoditize air and water. Therefore your argument as a straw man. I was merely telling you that your understanding of price was flawed, and belies the usual socialist simplification.

711. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183934 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 8:01 am

Bonzai,

Interesting example, except that the market only recognize price, not value.

Ooooooh swing and a miss. Price is based on perceived value.

712. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

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

elephant,






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

Corporations need not be treated as people in order for this to take place. A corporation is valued (capitalized) based on the sum total of assets and liabilities. Equipment is part of the equation as is the value of the employees, this has nothing to do with the "personness" of the organization.

713. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183924 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:52 am

qomak,





That is a very unfair characterization. My point wasn't to make an example of socialism, my point was to say that attempts at socialism lead to nasty, cruel, genocidal regimes.... the most bloody the world has ever seen:

Soviet
China
Khmer Rouge
Cuba

These are instantiations of the consequences of attempts at Socialism.


Your characterization of the Kibbutzim is a feather in my cap, not yours or the socialists. I have said at least 6 times that in a Capitalist society (Israel) people are free to go live communally if they so wish, and people do. The reverse situation is unacceptable to the Socialist regime.

Secondly, the Kibbutzim (as Chomsky pointed out to me) are much closer to libertarian anarchism than they are to Socialism/Communism. Although they do practice communal land ownership, the rest can largely be chalked up to anarchism and libertarianism. They also supply the pipeline for the Israeli military... many officers in all branches of the Israeli military come from the Kibbutzim.

But Socialism can work in a microcosm, where there is a stable working economy surrounding the group. And Socialism is an agrarian system. That is why Marx was pushing the de-urbanization of the country, he wanted people to retreat to rural areas. So yes, socialism might work, in a tiny microcosm, and only if you like plowing your fields with oxen and milking goats.

714. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

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

epeeist,






Like I said, Liberty should be ensured by the state. Freedom from concentrations of power, public or private. Corporations should not be treated as entities, politically or otherwise. They shouldn't be able to contribute to political campaigns. They shouldn't be able to dodge laws. They shouldn't be treated as a "person". Corporations, that are publicly owned are different than the kind of corporation you may be thinking of. These corporations return profits to their shareholders, in the form of dividends, or in the form of appreciation of the value of the ownership share. These corporations also have voting rights, designated to shareholders.


Most people here who have retirement plans are invested in these corporations through 401k and IRA plans. The profit earned by these companies are helping numerous people to retire.



Bonzai,




I have said previously that there are numerous socialist programs that should be imported into a capitalist system, and that will happen. That is the beauty of a capitalist democracy. People can effect change in the economy, and political system. Socialism prevents this, absolutely. For instance, privatization in China was not a decision of the people (all though many people support it) it was an arbitrary decision of the government. Because in Socialist countries Big Brother... I mean the party.... I mean the government knows best.


The discipline of capitalism absolutely can't be enforced by army and violence. Captialist societies are consistently the ones who do the least violence to their own populations. Socialist countries are the one using gulags, riot police, tanks and other weapons against their own population to ensure that their system is maintained.

Have you ever noticed how it is always a narcissistic psycopath who becomes president (for life of course) in a socialist country? No doubt merely a coincidence, although it seems to coincide only with socialist countries, but I am sure it is simply an accident and has nothing to do with the ideology sucking ass.

715. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183910 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:06 am

I am not going to lie, that comment about Anna really pissed me the fuck off.




It wasn't so bad that he made the comment, but it was so annoying that he couldn't see the difference between commentary on a 1,300 year old historical figure who led his life as an open example and that of contemporary people who never comment on their personal life beyond a few general comments.


It was the insurmountable stupidity of that little turd that made me mad.

716. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183902 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 6:30 am

epeeist,






Who said libertarianism will function well? And what libertarianism are you talking about, American or English? In my view, Libertarianism is a form of governance that protects people from centralization of power, be it public or private. So in that sense, that will definitely work, and it does work.



Socialism isn't the withering away of the state, not even close... not even remotely close.

Socialism is a pernicious dogma, on par with the "Risen Lord". The problem is that to ensure Socialism works, in D'Arcy's worldwide scheme, a state must be present to enforce socialism on those who disagree, or those with different ideas. The allocation of resources means not only giving resources to one group, but taking it away from another. Unless of course you think you can get everyone on the planet to agree to a form of governance... and that is such a fairytale that I can dismiss it out of hand. It is just plain silly. What about human nature makes you think you can get 7 billion people all in the same boat.

Right now, under a capitalist system, you and your trotskyist pals are more than welcome to get some land somewhere, live on the land, farm, milk cows, raise chickens and share equally in the produce. No one is stopping you. That is liberty, a human right. Now in a socialist state, I cannot get some land with my buddies and all develop competing industries in a capitalist microcosm. The state would have to crush this, because it would play on human nature (the desire to excel) and would attract others, the state would have to crush the competing (superior) ideologies.


Socialism is anti-liberty. It is unworkable because definitions get quite messy... Are pictures of my family communal property, is my car, are my pants, how about beer? The state must micro-manage each of these, because people can't be allowed to do so for themselves, and one certainly can't have private property.


I prefer liberty, freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail, the freedom to live how I choose. You would have to kill me before I let a bunch of socialist Nazis take my life away from me, and there are millions upon millions who feel the same, which means the creation of this ridiculous state would cause massive blood shed. And since it requires all people to agree... so long as I am alive this can never happen. So you are free to maintain this fairytale, but please don't pretend it is realistic.

717. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183899 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 6:18 am

MaxD,






I welcome all challengers.



But he won't make much headway if he sticks to spelling errors and wikipedia citations, while completely ignoring substance and questions.



And I think... troll.

718. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183894 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 5:50 am

Well said everyone.... except D'Arcy.... :-)



Anyhow, D'Arcy keeps yelping about "participation" when we talk about a "leviathan" state, as Phil so accurately describes it. Just because people participate, doesn't mean the government won't be huge, overbearing and unwieldy.


The problem is Socialism works for about 5 minutes. The poor get their bread, and all is well. Then shortly people would like to improve their lives a little beyond subsistence farming, but too late the government must preserve the doctrines of the "revolution", and crush the opposition.


D'Arcy's democractic theory works like this:

One man
One vote
One time.

719. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183707 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Q,






GREAT POST! The problem with these socialists is that they think it is totally acceptable to crush liberty and freedom. They think they have a right to trample people in the pursuit of the unattainable. Socialists are the most arrogant of people.... they say:


"A state, full of bureaucrats who don't know the situation of the people, can better determine how they should live their lives then these people can determine for themselves."


I can't imagine living somewhere where I was told how to do everything.... I alread read "1984".

720. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183703 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm

D'Arcy,






I don't have a problem with democracy as long as the minority groups have the liberty to pursue the right to institute changes to the system, have the freedom and liberty to lead their lives free from government dictum. The freedom to establish a way of life congruent to their beliefs with regards to personal matters and choice. It makes no established economic system, it operates congruent to an economic system it does not administer the system.

A socialist democracy is a democracy for exactly one vote and one vote only.

721. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183702 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Socialism takes on many forms... I will briefly define some characteristics that are both necessary and consequent aspects of socialism:


-State ownership
-End to incentives
-End to private wealth
-End to the ability to determine your own course in life
-The stultification of research and development
-Enormous taxation
-Incentivization of indolence
-Punishment of ambition
-Liberty subservient to the state apparatus


If you made it a democracy, all of this still holds true, and instead intellectual minorities will suffer especially.


Socialism = End of liberty.

722. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183693 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 2:01 pm

mordacious1,






LOL

723. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183691 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I agree, Wikipedia is good, I like it, and if you are a credulous idiot (like greek) then it is probably dangerous, but if you have any critical thinking skills, you can probably use it to your benefit.



I found him repellent, obviously, but does everyone else consider lastgreekstanding a dumb ass?

724. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183690 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm

My definition of socialism isn't at all important, yours is. I take people at their word when they say "I am a socialist" or "This country is a socialist country", now there are parameters here, but my opinion is not important.


Yours is. I have shown why yours would be a failure, a total failure. In fact you hammered the nail in the coffin for me, with

"from each according to his ability to each according to his need".

This rules out ambition, incentives, the ability to excel above and beyond your peers. There is a simple fact, people flock to the United States, from the poorest places (as well as the richest places), these people know they will have a chance to succeed. Ask any immigrant about their economic outlook and you will get a similar story (many are escaping brands of socialism). People come here to try for a dream, to try to maximize the return for their labor and/or their abilities. No system that strips this, will be effective in advancing society. The rationing of food, the rationing of resources, the abject depression... these will all be the cause of a downfuall of socialism.


The good news is your system has absolutely no chance of ever being enacted. It reminds me of the Muslims I know describing how the Islamic state is perfect, but has only to be implemented (I hear "yes there are amputations, but since there won't be poor people, no one will steal so they won't be needed"). People are not going to willingly vote their potential away to instead have rationed bread.


And just because there is a democratic election involved doesn't mean the situation will work. Kim Song Il was exceptionally popular, and look at North Korea today. Many socialist states came to power on a wave of popularity, only to fail within 5 decades.

But you proposal is so ridiculous that we are safe from such insanity.

725. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183687 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm

mordacious1,





Just remember, according to Greekstanding, Wiki is useless... but it supports his theory (and your theory) of democracy.

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.



The above is what the dictionary.com had to say about it.

I take the basic definition of democracy. I think the goal of democracy should be to establish common rights... this SHOULD be the goal, it should be what is sought to be the definition of the government... elected by and for the people.

726. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183680 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:18 pm

mordacious1,

All people in the society have to have egual access to power, and all persons shall have egual rights and freedoms

People in England do not have equal access to power. Atheists may struggle to get elected. A Muslim could never become prime minister. Thus England is not a democracy? Wrong.


Democracy is a term that gets abused by politicos desiring to make ideological points. Democracy, coming from demos is rule by the common man, or the "mob". If it is to mean anything, it must mean that this is the definition. That common people select their leadership, and the majority gets the majority of power. What they do with this power, has everything to do with their quality of democracy, but nothing to do with their definition as a democracy.


If someone said "The UK is a shitty democracy, because it doesn't treat people fairly" I would say "Yes, that is true."


Once you demand perfectly equal treatment for all citizens be a requisite for qualification of a democracy, you set up an impossible standard, and thus no country can be a democracy. But if you were to say the country must have debate and make attempts to give people better access and more equality, I might be willing to concur.

727. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183670 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I have been busy here.... So I shall let another volunteer tear D'Arcy's post to shreds.




D'Arcy I will try to be more polite, but please read through that post with an eye to the efficacy of such a plan. If you really cannot see the glaring errors, that IMHO, are worthy of ridicule for their childish and unrealistic nature, then come back to me and we can chat about it. But srsly...


I will commit a quick sin and cite Thomas Aquinas and point out that Democracy is a tyranny of the majority, so a socialist system, democratically elected, would impose itself on those that disagreed. In a capitalist democracy Socialists are free to have their policies enacted.


And those countries you cite are not straw men... those are the results of attempts at socialism. Sort of like Iran is an example of an attempt at Shariah... there are plenty of Shariah supporters despite its failure, just like there are plenty of socialists despite its utter failure.

The things that drive Capitalism have been around for a very long time. Your vituperative statement trying to disprove this is just a fatuous simplification of a point well respected anthropologists would agree with.

728. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183666 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 12:58 pm

mesomodel,






I have created the pages for:


Mahmoud Pasikhani (English)
Mahmoud Pasikhani (Arabic)
Nuqtavi Movement (English)
Nuqtavi Movement (Arabic)


Those are reasonably obscure.


However trying to edite the Article on Sayyid Ali Muhammad Shirazi (The Bab) was exceptionally difficult, largely because the editors were a cabal of Baha'i sheeple, but I broke their will to obscure the truth of his recantation, and my edits made it in. It was a bitter weeklong battle on the discussion page but it got done. I was of course, accused of being a supporter of SAVAK, but no matter.

Despite the acrimony, things got done, and in a somewhat neutral fashion, it was a nicer tone than I would have used, but I can understand how my "tone" may not have been appropriate for Wikipedia.

729. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183657 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Frankus,





As I pointed out to the greek (who of course completely ignored it) that Wikipedia is often good when discussing issues of popular usage, or culture. And often you get people who really know what they are talking about.

Wikipedia undergoes a form of natural selection. I tried to edit the Baha'i page once to include a pair of recantations uttered by their "prophet" while in Iran. I tried to edit the page. The current editors confronted me, demanded evidence. I provided the documentation, and after a week long back and forth there was a consensus reached to include my edits. Greek acts like anyone can come in and edit, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

730. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183650 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 12:17 pm

MaxD,





To be honest, the Wiki pages on these topics are usually pretty good. There is little other option aside from meeting the people who are in them.

You can google them and look at some other sources as well.


Or you can be like the greek and be all knowing, but unable to provide evidence...

731. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183642 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 12:06 pm

MaxD,






I have been close to the Muslim community in the Bay Area for some time. I find that converts generally become quite radical when they initially convert. The reason is that there are many common personal reasons, often including an identity crisis... thus they change their names to Sayf ul-Deen (Sword of faith) or something and head out to study the religion.

Converts are also subject to the recruiters from various factions that prey on fellow Muslims...

These are,


-Tabliqi Jama'a (Non-violent, although staunchly religious)
-Salafis (very fundamentalist)
-Wahhabis (very fundamentalist, however direct their ire at other Muslims)

And several others. Once a person becomes Muslim there is a play for his loyalties and mind. I see a lot of white Tabliqis.


Just look at Adam Gadhan, he is from Riverside, CA.... a rural part, not far from my hometown. He was an awkward individual, had troubly fitting in. He found a new identity and a way to be hostile to the society he resents. And poof... radical.

732. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183639 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 11:59 am

MaxD,





The people whom are often defined as "radicals" or whatever, have no fear about putting civilians in harms way, in fact it is preferred. As long as the US is in charge, all civilian deaths ultimately are the responsibility of the occupier. This is an article of international law as well as an indirect consequence. International law dictates that the occupier (after territory conquered in a war, then subsequently administrated by the occupier) is responsible for basic services, safety of transit, etc...


So if the "insurgents" kill civilians it will simply fall at the feet of the Americans. Not all Iraqis fall for this (I would hope) but enough do to demand the US leave, as if the US leaving would do anything to mitigate the terror attacks, which would continue afterward, but would only be directed at the Shi'a there. (*EDIT* The Sunni attacks would, the Shi'a militia would also be active, with support from Iran).


In fact, Islamic Law permits for the use of human shields. They may be used in a Halal fashion so long as they are compensated, or their families are compensated in the event of death. So it is completely permissible in Islam to use them as human shields.

733. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183610 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 11:03 am

lastgreekstanding,




Although I am not a special education teacher, I will attempt to help you anyhow:


You said:

A democratic state MUST accept the equality of ALL its residents within its borders.

I said among many other things, that this IS NOT a requirement to be a democracy. Was the US a democracy when it had Jom Crow laws? Yes. Or before the Civil Rights Act? Yes... So when I don't follow your logic I really don't.

I concurred that Israel is a racist state with regards to how it treats citizenship, with how it treats Palestinians in the Occupied Territories... but Arabs living in Israel are full citizens. I was asking for evidence otherwise, but you were unable to provide any, instead choosing to be a pedant about spelling Cyprus as opposed to how I forgetfully spelled the word "Cypress"... which I realized sometime later, but was too lazy to edit.


I explained everyone of the statements you posted (of mine), including the admission that I had revised my position, no longer holding such a belief.



So in all honesty, you are simply dodging the issue.


You claim that my post on the 8 year old girl was somehow lying. Quite the opposite, I realized the US had mistakenly said her age was 8, when it was in fact 16... this is something any adult would do, instead of making a 5 post tirade on spelling.

And then you completely ignored the news piece on a 10 year old carrying out a suicide attack in Afghanistan. One must, at the very least, question your motives if you are only willing to pay attention to spelling and ancient posts, as opposed to the numerous issues at hand. You have accused Israel of being a racist state... I agreed. You accused Israel of not being a democracy because it institutionally discriminates against Arab-Israeli citizens. I didn't follow the logic on how you got there. But there was no logic, it was a statement absent fact, absent logic, and absent sense.



As for Wikipedia, you of course glossed over my point about its value for issues of common usage, which does have value. And specifically my citation of the Middle East Article which defines the Middle East in terms of COMMON USAGE. But instead of even reading this (assuming you can read) you go on and on and on about how it uses the 1911 Britannica.


And even if I contradicted a previous opinion (which I have numerous times, once new evidence presents itself to me) it has no bearing on what I am asking of you. It is an ad hominem and has nothing to do with the value (or lack thereof) of your posts or arguments. I would think that a brilliant logician such as yourself would figure this out.

734. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183593 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 10:17 am

RD,





I was just being flippant. But I guess you could have saved some money on the procedure and gone the microwave route.

735. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183587 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 10:10 am

Rawhard,






I got one for you....


Turn on your microwave, and hold you bean bag up near the window for about 10 minutes... that should knock down the sperm count.

736. In God's Name

Comment #183564 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 9:20 am

Auraboy,





Fanusi has always represented what I see as the extreme solution. However it is also extremely pragmatic. Furthermore, I think he is right that our other option is to allow immigrants to grow more radical, more divisive, and more dangerous, and then watch fascists come to power with promises of fixing the problem in a more severe fashion.

Just remember that every accomodation you make for Islam is one they will not make for you. Just because you give them a limited Shariah court in London, does not mean they will recognize gay marriage in Tehran.

Education works, for some, but for the vast majority there will be no compromise. And what's worse is that they view logic and reason as tools of Satan. That anything contradicting their worldview is totally evil, and anything resembling this will be shunned.

I would ask you how do you plan to deal with those, dedicated to a religious life, to be imposed on other Muslims (leaving aside the rest of the world) who may not wish it? How do you plan to reason with someone who believe they have god on their side, and all right resides with them? How to fix?

737. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183542 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 8:45 am

Hehe,

"Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles."


-Voltaire
Candide

738. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183520 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 7:56 am

That turtle was pretty big.




I have a picture with a frog.


But my picture with Artemis frog is mine, and I am not sharing.

739. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183509 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 7:42 am

Anna,







Whoever took that picture is an exceptional photographer... a real Ansel Adams.

740. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #183508 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 7:41 am

Don't they also kill albinos for good luck?



I think the witch doctors there definitely do this. In Tanzania (anyway) there were laws enacted to protect albinos from witch doctor sacrifices.

741. In God's Name

Comment #183486 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 7:15 am

Layla,




Very true. Very insightful. Islam is held as the eternal truth by Muslims. Multi-culturalsim only applies to the westerners, who must make room for Islam. I never hear much about "multi-culturalism" in Iran, Saudi, Iraq, Egypt. I hear a lot of "preserving the Muslim culture from western imperialism." So when they come to the west they want "Multi-culturalism", when we go there we are expected to "respect and conform to their culture". That is quite an impressive accomplishment. It isn't about sharing cultural values, it is about slowly making Islam supreme.

742. In God's Name

Comment #183478 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 7:01 am

epeeist,





You will have to forgive my ignorance of the British higher education system.


He was accepted for a doctorate... in the US that is a PhD, I made the assumption.

743. In God's Name

Comment #183462 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 6:46 am

epeeist,








What then is the advanced degree at Oxford? Mphil? MA? I don't get it, there are doctorate programs are there not?

744. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183455 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 6:40 am

Lastgeekstanding,



Ahhhh now you have deflected the discussion, once again, away from your perverse morality, to my formerly articulated views on Israel, which I detest for its activities in the West Bank and occupied territories. But I will take a huge shit on you before I flag you as a troll, which you are, because you don't answer posts, and simply seek to start arguments, unrelated to the topic.

-->"Non Jews cannot become citizens, Jews have the right of return. A national policy which discriminates between Jews and non-Jews. Orthodox Jews are exempted from military service to attend Yeshiva and become nastier fundamentalists. Non-Jews may not buy land owned by the JNF. This is sanctioned by the Israeli government. East Jerusalem residents (Arabs) pay tax at a 34% rate. They receive 10% expenditure on social services. Jewish only roads in the West Bank. Shall I go on with this pernicious Klan like nonsense you call "secular democracy"?

Israel is a Jewish state. It cannot be called a "secular" democracy in its literal sense, however compared to its neighbors, it can be called a "secular" state, if only by comparison.

All of the places I mention, are the OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, you soppy cunt. You cannot even read, which is not much of a surprise.


-Orthodox Jews are exempted from Military service, this is not a discrimination against ARABS, it is a discrimination against Jews who aren't Orthodox.

-Jewish Nation Fund, I later realized that this, although discriminatory, is not a state function, the Jewish National Fund is not a state system, so it is not state discrimination, therefore I was wrong to include this in the list.

-East Jerusalem is in the OCCUPIED TERRITORIES and not inside Israel, therefore it is not Apartheid within Israel, which is what I asked you to prove, and you haven't of course.

-Jewish only roads... OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, discriminatory? Yes. Inside Israel? No. You are the one in need of a geography lesson.

-Non-Jews cannot become citizens... as pointed out to me there are plenty of countries that do this, however the Arabs that live inside Israel ARE citizens... FULL citizens. Although I find it repellent that Non-Jews cannot become citizens, I cannot claim it is apartheid. And that wasn't my claim in the post you cite.

-->"Israel's declaration of independence was a joke, like the state itself. Built on a real estate contract with a sky daddy. Worthless trash, not worth the paper it is written on."

_True true and truer. Real Estate contracts with a God are worthless, not worth the paper they are written on. What does this have to do with domestic apartheid? I still agree with this statement, it has nothing to do with proving your point, which you of course cannot accomplish, except by deflecting and using non-sequiters.

-->"What a disgusting state. The only thing more disgusting may be the Palestinian religious radicalism. But as secularists we shouldn't betray a noble cause by support for an institutionally racist state."

-I am disgusted by Israel, absolutely. Your problem (one among many, no doubt) is that you have mistaken me for a supporter of Israel, an out-and-out supporter at that. Israel bases its nationalism requirements on race, therefore it is a racist state. How does this show there is APARTHEID within Israel? I asked you to show there was apartheid INSIDE ISRAEL. You simply don't have the intellectual horsepower to pull it off.


There's more. Here's al-rawandi's take on suicide bombings (same thread as the above quotes):

-->"I would like to opine that people find suicide bombing disgusting simply because the bomber kills himself. This is the atrocious act. Missile strikes do not bother anyone. Why is that?"

-A valid question. But you are too stupid to realize that, unlike you, I am not apologizing for suicide bombings, I am saying that people should share equal outrage for civilian death. The problem with moral perverts, such as yourself, is that you cannot bring yourselves to apply your high morals to everyone, thus you remain silent when there is a suicide bombing in a Tel Aviv Starbucks, yet wail and scream when a missile strike targeting a militant also kills a civilian. You sir are the hypocrite.

-->"The difference generally noted is that Terrorists deliberately target civilians while the US does not."

A difficult statement to analyze. I would argue that the US doesn't generally target civilians (which was the point of this post, which you have removed from all context for your hypocritical ends). However there is a difference, in my mind, between targeting a civilian and being indifferent to a civilian's presence in a target area. Now the below post:

-->"I do not agree that the US never targets civilians. However proceeding with a mission that is designed for economic benefit while allowing for severe collateral damage among a civilian populace is precisely terrorism. If the goals are unjust, then the act is unjust. End of story."

So here I say that indifference can be the "targeting of civilians", I simply consider the indifference a near positive act. However this post was from many months ago, I no longer concur that the US is a terrorist state. But I would be willing to reconsider, based on evidence, if you could manage to post something that might be considered evidence, or even a response to what I am asking you.


So you are guilty of, to quote _riverrun_ , anachronistic recontextualisation. There are many opinions I expressed here, a long time ago, with which I no longer agree. So I have the courage to subject my opinions to evidence, do you have the same courage? I doubt it, you cannot even find the testicular fortitude to answer simple questions put to you.


So now that we have reconcilled your smoke screen post, do you care to answer the questions I put to you, or are you going to continue to be a troll?




MaxD, All,



I suggest, we mark the greek here a troll until he actually begins answering posts that are clearly directed to him, with very simple statements requiring response.

745. In God's Name

Comment #183438 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 6:14 am

Mark Smith,

This seems rather sweeping. There are fundamentalist Christians who are similar. On the other hand, there are people who were brought up as muslims who are thoroughly reasonable. I wouldn't deny though that people with muslim backgrounds in largely non-muslim countries feel all sorts of emotional ties and loyalties to those backgrounds.

It is sweeping. There is always a point were rationalism breaks down. I know of only a couple of rational Muslims.... Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq. So when you discuss something with a Muslim it quickly devolves into trenchant positioning.

For instance I was talking about atheism with my most rational Mulim friend. He was a finalist for the Rhodes Scholarship, accepted for a PhD at Oxford, became a successful Investment Banker... He defined intellectual in many ways. He is a very close personal friend. I got to talking about things like the marriage of Muhammad to a 9 year old, I talked about scientific fuck ups in the Qur'an, Beheading of defeated populations... Do you want to hear what his answer was?:


"Asked and answered, those are Orientalist questions, and they have been asked and answered."

He accused me of Orientalist thinking (which isn't an insult because they had some insightful commentary) then told me it had all been solved. My response:

"Where were they asked and answered, I will look them up."


Him: "They have been asked and answered by many scholars".

Me: "Excellent, where, and by whom?"

Him: "I don't have the energy or time for polemics."


This is the kind of thinking you are up against, and unlike Christianity, these people are what we have to hope for... we have to hope they drop the wooly thinking and confront fundamentalism and solve the problem for us. Someone who thinks any criticism of Islamic doctrine is antiquated racism (orientalism), how do you work with this? You can't, you can only hope when the chips begin to fall, that these people don't side with the radicals.

746. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183434 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 5:52 am

Hollllyyy shhiiitttt



I leave for 12 hours and Count Dracula here can't stop whining about me. I am glad to know I have an obsessed fan. No one give him my address though, I still get a lot of mail from my boy band days....


Clearmind,



You are completely incoherent. I cannot believe you are a teacher of any kind. The reason? Because not only is your spelling and grammar atrocious, but your attempts at witty and vituperative responses wouldn't make sense even if was in perfect English. The ideas are poor, the logic is poor, the thinking is poor.


You are genuinely retarded, and this November I will be voting for anyone who runs on a platform of bombing Romania.

747. In God's Name

Comment #183233 by al-rawandi on May 21, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Mark,





The fact that Muhammad married a 6 year old girl, and would fondle her in the bath tub. Then he "consumated" the marriage when she was 9.

There is a famous hadith from A'isha where she describes one of her duties as washing semen stains off of Muhammad's clothes. This draws a great deal of ire from Muslims, despite the fact that Muslim scholars have labeled it blasphemy to doubt the marrying age or the semen washing.

748. In God's Name

Comment #183229 by al-rawandi on May 21, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Let's not forget the Harbi movement. A group of mujahideen have arisen, and they have infiltrated European countries. They operate under the doctrine that it is permissible to drink, eat pork, have sex, blaspheme, whatever they want, because it advances the Jihad and Allah's cause, and if they are martyrs they will be forgiven anyhow. A cell of these Harbis was uncovered in France. When the police moved in on their apartment, they detonated a bomb killing themselves. Thus they avoided capture by the French authorities.

749. In God's Name

Comment #183226 by al-rawandi on May 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Mark Smith,





I have tried to rationalize to Muslims, I have tried to reason.... It cannot be done.


One of the nicest, smartest Muslims I know, who is completing his PhD in Urban Plannin (Water Purity with a strong Biology element) got into a discussion over evolution. I told him it is a bullet proof case. He said that he couldn't buy it because he lives in a "God centered world". They will suspend reason, call you a liar, etc... simply to maintain the belief.


Then of all things.... they use "racism" laws and slurs to defend their bigotry.


If you tell Muslims... "Your religion allows slavery", there is no refutation, only cries of "racist". You are buying into propaganda by thinking of anti-Islamism as anything other than a distaste for totalitarian Islam. There are a few who will come around, but the totalitarianism aspect is strongly rooted in Arab culture.

I support reasoning with them, but that doesn't last long because they begin the emotive wailing and hollering almost immediately. They will do anything to avoid the issues.

750. In God's Name

Comment #183223 by al-rawandi on May 21, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Fanusi,



Thanks.



And in a moment of shameless self promotion:


http://alrawandi.blogspot.com/


I have a post up on Chomsky's self flagellations and defense of Holocaust deniers.