Comments by hungarianelephant

Comment #130740 by hungarianelephant on February 21, 2008 at 8:10 am

TonyA - Please! I'm trying to work here. How am I supposed to do that when I'm rolling on the floor crying with laughter?

852. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130680 by hungarianelephant on February 21, 2008 at 6:38 am

Yes, but what you've missed is that the something made of nothing that became human is the offspring of the original something made of nothing, while there's also an unexplained something made of nothing which is necessary to interact with the something. Oh, and they are all the same, and always have been.

Everything clear?

853. Fleabytes

Comment #130655 by hungarianelephant on February 21, 2008 at 5:41 am

ArtfulDodger - What I am saying is that if evolution is indeed indifferent, if it neither knows nor cares, then it is meaningless to expend our energies in defense of the weak and vulnerable. The "survival of the fittest" theme will always have the last word. Human dignity is of no more importance than the dignity of compost.

That is nonsense.

Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. In no way does it suggest that it is a bad idea, or meaningless, to look after the weak and vulnerable.

At the most basic level, my baby daughter is weak and vulnerable, but if I don't expend my energies in protecting and nurturing her, my genes have a vanishingly small chance of being passed on further.

You can argue all day long that the concept of human dignity is meaningless, but that won't make our evolved instinct to protect the weak and vulnerable go away.

854. Fleabytes

Comment #130645 by hungarianelephant on February 21, 2008 at 4:39 am

Vaal (228. Comment #130636) - Richard Leakey argues, persuasively in my view, that a feedback loop leading to the evolution of ever-more intelligent beings was indeed inevitable, once a species emerged that was principally reliant on its intelligence. I'm paraphrasing and probably not doing his argument full justice. The Sixth Extinction is a cracking read and I highly recommend it.

Of course that doesn't mean that humans were inevitable.

I find it's good fun to try to get fully paid-up religious types to explain to six-year-olds that the late Flopsy Bunny isn't going to heaven because she didn't have a soul. This has the dual merit of (a) sorting out the a la carte religious (which in Ireland at least is nearly everyone) from the fundies, and (b) really irritating the fundies.

855. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130642 by hungarianelephant on February 21, 2008 at 4:12 am

Steve beat me to it.

Please don't apologise and please don't stop.

My one and only regret about studying law was that I had to pass up the chance to study maths and philosophy. Maybe when I retire and need to be kept out of my wife's way.

856. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130323 by hungarianelephant on February 20, 2008 at 9:57 am

The Bishop - Just had one of my parishioners knock at the door ...

Bishops don't have parishes.

Perhaps you are a different kind of bishop? Chess, perhaps, since you only seem to be able to move diagonally.

857. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130291 by hungarianelephant on February 20, 2008 at 8:16 am

al-rawandi - Sorry to steal your thunder.

It's so hard to believe that anyone would fall for it that I couldn't resist.

858. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130283 by hungarianelephant on February 20, 2008 at 8:04 am

Hey, Bish. Whose computer are you using? Not yours, surely.

859. Why Darwin matters

Comment #130258 by hungarianelephant on February 20, 2008 at 7:47 am

So to summarise The Bishop's posts thus far:

The Bible was written by humans

It is self-contradictory

Unbelievers are blinded by their modern gods

Science has created the means to cause mass killing

I think I can see where this is going.

860. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128864 by hungarianelephant on February 18, 2008 at 5:52 am

Snowflakes.

Surely wooter's strangest argument yet. I don't know where you can possibly begin with someone who thinks that "God" is a better explanation for the differences in snowflakes than chaos theory. That would not pass muster with my four year old godson (don't ask).

Honestly, if you were a religious type, how could you carry round in your head the idea that God spends his time designing snowflakes and deciding how many will fall, but cannot be arsed to cure a child of leukaemia?

Wrt the "debating with fundamentalists" question, I'm generally in favour of letting them run. It's always useful to see what people are really thinking. We're probably never going to get any of them to believe something different. But I'd guess there are visitors here who are genuinely curious to learn something, especially about science. I have great admiration for some posters - you know who you are - with the patience to keep responding to the likes of wooter. S/he won't learn anything, but the rest of us might.

That said, it's about time that wooter was booted off this site. S/he is contributing absolutely nothing but the same old, grammatically malformed arguments (in the loosest sense of the word), all of which boil down to "I don't understand this, therefore God exists". S/he refuses to engage in discussion, and simply ignores any counterpoints, only to bring up the original "point" again in another stream of consciousness 200 posts later.

Time to send the woot back to writing manuals for questionable Malaysian electronic equipment.

861. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126833 by hungarianelephant on February 14, 2008 at 10:00 am

DavidJMH - The whole point as some of you have pointed out is to stop criminals re-offending and you don't achieve that by coddling and pleading.

That is possible. But what you are presenting is a binary choice between modern "soft" punishment, and something much harder.

There is another way. Do some research on the Danish prison system. You may find it a little too "liberal" for your tastes, but rates of reoffending are significantly lower than those in Britain or the US. So by the measure that we all say we agree upon, it works.

Prepared to give it a go?

862. Council pays psychic for exorcism

Comment #126710 by hungarianelephant on February 14, 2008 at 2:44 am

Bear in mind that £60 is the official cost to the council, so you can imagine how much it actually cost.

863. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125956 by hungarianelephant on February 12, 2008 at 10:24 am

It is an interesting question, but what do we then do with these 'non-citizens'?

I don't fully know.

If we put the religious issue on one side for a moment, there's another precedent for this.

The standard Irish republican line about Bloody Sunday - and I'm not just talking about the Shinners - is that the British government gunned down 14 of its own citizens (the unstated conclusion being that it therefore has no moral authority over anything).

This is technically true. The British government is responsible for the actions of its army, who may or may not have started the shooting but certainly finished it, and the dead would be regarded in international law as British citizens.

But they would not have regarded themselves as British citizens. They were Irish, and the Brits were, in their eyes, an occupying power.

Does this give the British army the right to shoot them?

Of course not.

Is their citizenship really relevant to the moral questions about what happened that day?

Not really.

It's a piece of linguistic propaganda. There's a long tradition in these islands of the rule of law, equal protection and rights against the government. It didn't always happen, but the aspiration still resonates. The air of England is too sweet for slaves to breathe. Britons never never. And all that. Result: the concept of citizenship appears to trump all other considerations, at least as far as a person's rights are concerned.

This is fallacious reasoning. All people are entitled to some rights by virtue of being people. Other expectations of a citizen are, surely, contingent on the acceptance of expectations from a citizen.

The trick is to work out which is which.

If for no reasons other than practical ones, we can't easily deport these people, although we could strongly suggest that they remove themselves to somewhere more in keeping with their aspirations. But I think we're justified in saying, off the top of my head: no, sorry, you can't import wives just so you can keep them as second class citizens. No you can't have Islamic schools even if we keep the Christian ones. No you're not entitled to have your mad clerics preaching hate. And no, you can't wear a burqa, or make anyone else wear one.

864. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125943 by hungarianelephant on February 12, 2008 at 9:52 am

Steve Zara - But you can't say "leave" to people who are fellow citizens

On the other hand: Some of these people are "British" only by an accident of birth. They are not British by any other meaningful standard. 40% of British Muslims wish to see sharia introduced, and another 20% "don't know". A quarter think the killing of British troops in Iraq is justified, and a similar number supported 9/11, the same as the number who think Abu Hamza's treatment was unfair. A tenth say they have no loyalty to Britian whatsoever, and some 7% - that's 200,000 British citizens - say that Western society should be brought to an end, including by violence if necessary. When you don't consider yourself to have the responsibilities of a citizen of your country, why should you be considered a citizen?

I'm not advocating compulsory deportation, but I don't think we can hand-wave this issue away.

In the meantime, the practice continues of importing wives from some desolate part of Pakistan, because the British-born women are insufficiently Islamic, i.e. they tend to get uppity about being second class citizens. Does anyone really think this is a good idea?

865. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124080 by hungarianelephant on February 8, 2008 at 9:56 am

Dinah - Excuse me, but I believe some hard-line clerics in mosques in Britain are suggesting exactly that 'kind of nonsense'.

Of course they are. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the Archbishop's proposal, woolly and ill thought out as it is.

And if certain aspects of Sharia law were to be introduced, there would soon be pressure to introduce others.

Why? How does that argument go? "You allow sharia banking, therefore you must allow stoning."? Why would anyone think that was a good argument?

No one ever suggests that when we implement some provision of US or French or Spanish law (which happens regularly), that it's dangerous because there will soon be pressure to introduce other aspects. If there is anything in the difference here, it's that it's in the nature of Muslim representatives to keep demanding more, as loudly as possible.

While I don't favour appeasement as a general policy, I also don't see the need to resist every single push for change, just because it's made by Muslims. I'd prefer to examine proposals on their merits. And if anyone can explain to me how sharia resolution of property disputes is different from submitting the case to the American Arbitration Association, I'm all ears.

866. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124038 by hungarianelephant on February 8, 2008 at 7:52 am

Because his responsibility as a leader of that denomination is to lead.

Well then that's a matter between him and his ~~sheep~~ flock. It should not concern you or me.

As to weddings in religious places, that's their party and they can invite who they want. You can go and get married somewhere where they don't discriminate against people for being gay. I've been to weddings in castles and even a football stadium which were legally binding. That's perfectly possible for a gay couple as well, except that they call it something else. Though come to think of it, you might not want to try it at Anfield for a few years.

It only starts to matter when the churches start interfering with what goes on outside their churches. Which of course they do with boring regularity.

867. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124031 by hungarianelephant on February 8, 2008 at 7:35 am

I know what the Archbishop said was a lot milder than has been reported, but he has a responsibility to not be so naive and incompetent as to talk like that in public.

Why?

Btw I think I picked up the marriage point. It's stupid that Anglican church weddings (and I think Catholic weddings) are automatically recognised and others are not. But what would be the big deal about allowing it in a mosque?

868. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #124029 by hungarianelephant on February 8, 2008 at 7:27 am

I hope I have been as vociferous as anyone about Islam. Except Diacanu, obviously.

But.

I have to agree with Cartomancer (123861). This is a very big storm in a very small teacup.

No one is suggesting introducing stoning for adulterers and gays, or forcing women to wear the veil, or any of that nonsense. Whatever else he throws into his speech, Williams is talking about specific aspects of civil law, and allowing consenting adults to decide how they want to resolve disputes on certain issues.

We already do this. It's called "arbitration" and "ADR". I don't remember anyone ever telling me that they are "wrong". I don't see why it suddenly becomes wrong when the arbitrator is an imam, and there's a background body of rules from an old book. If people want to engage in stupid, inefficient transactions because Allah forbids interest, then I'll think they're idiots, but it's really no one's business but theirs.

Some of the comments here are just plain silly. The US has fifty one different legal systems, but has somehow managed to avoid "balkanising" the country. The UK has six. Obviously there has to be one system which has precedence over any other. No one is suggesting otherwise.

I would have thought that many people on this site, of all places, would see the merit in detaching marriage law from central control. Once that's done, it becomes untenable for the government to tell people that they're not allowed to get married just because they're both of the same gender. Personal relationships are no business of the state anyway and marriage is only a legal concept because of the religious history behind it.

869. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #122241 by hungarianelephant on February 5, 2008 at 1:28 am

al-rawandi - You are far from an idiot just because I can't make my point clearly enough.

The US Constitution says nothing about abortion. That doesn't make for a very interesting case, of course, so the plaintiffs made up an analogy between the "privacy" right against illegal search and the right to the "privacy" of a woman's body. And the US Supreme Court bought it. The right to dispose of a first trimester foetus is "like" the right not to be searched (Qiyas?), much as driving a car is presumably "like" doing anything else involving personal freedom in a strict interpretation of Islam.

Dworkin would call this "incremental jurisprudence". I call it "making it up". Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent is a model of clarity, brevity and principled objection.

Of course, if you express a view like this, it's generally assumed you're a rabid, conservative and probably religious anti-abortionist.

Back on topic, presumably there must be some Muslim doctors who are involved in abortions and other unIslamic acts. I wonder if this is more about women.

870. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121896 by hungarianelephant on February 4, 2008 at 10:01 am

Just trying to stir up a row about abortion by comparing Sharia jurisprudence with the US Supreme Court circa 1973. Never mind.

871. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121873 by hungarianelephant on February 4, 2008 at 9:31 am

Ah, so the same principle that gave us Roe v. Wade, then. *ducks for cover*

872. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121869 by hungarianelephant on February 4, 2008 at 9:23 am

al-rawandi - That is possible. Another poster in another thread suggested that it was the application of colonial government at home, which also rings true. Either way, it would be nice to think that Muslims could be treated as citizens rather than as children who need the class bully to speak for them. We might then hear less from the class bully.

Slightly off-topic, I'd be intrigued to know which part of a 7th century document forbids a woman from operating a car.

873. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121855 by hungarianelephant on February 4, 2008 at 9:00 am

At the risk of stomping into a minefield, then ...

The biggest troublemakers do seem to be immigrants, particularly in the form of clerics and self-styled community leaders. Quite why the British govt continues to try to engage with these people is quite beyond me.

874. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121776 by hungarianelephant on February 4, 2008 at 6:18 am

ShavenYak - I'm afraid that's just wishful thinking and has no basis in intellectual property law. The churches got it right this time. Except the bit about not committing crimes in the name of Christ. That was obviously meant to be a joke. I think.

875. God vs. Gridiron

Comment #121702 by hungarianelephant on February 4, 2008 at 2:29 am

Russell Blackford - It's a matter of principle, not of rooting for whichever organisation you happen to like for some other reason. You can't take one attitude on such a matter if the organisation affected is a church and another if it's the local atheist society.

I agree. The NFL is entitled to control how its product is distributed. And if the Walnut Street Baptist Church wants to prevent its services being shown in football stadia rented out for the purpose, I would support its right to do so also.

876. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120132 by hungarianelephant on February 1, 2008 at 9:33 am

This speech is actually cannier than might at first appear.

Outside the confines of this site, science has a lousy public image. Many people are deeply uncomfortable with what it seems to offer, and in particular with the delivery of technology without regard to the consequences and their apparent treatment by science/scientists as units rather than as people. And like many public images, there is a kernel of truth.

Ratzinger is seeking to align his own perverted vision of the world with something that many people haven't yet properly conceptualised. He knows he's not going to get anywhere by banging on about abortion, so specifics are hidden within a list of what some will consider Frankenstein science.

We are not the target audience here.

[Edited to put html back in. Wtf is up with this?]

877. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117532 by hungarianelephant on January 29, 2008 at 4:10 am

epeeist - I don't disagree with any of what you say. I just don't see why it's a problem.

Most people don't just change their views when encountered with a counter-argument that they can't immediately deal with. This was why the "Changing My Mind" thread was worthwhile, and it's why religiosity persists in less "knowledgeable" theists. You can do some further research, enlist the help of thinking atheists, apply some sceptical thinking to the arguments presented, or, perhaps most likely, simply ignore them. I don't see that many people are likely to be picked off by the religious just because they haven't thought about it much.

878. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117524 by hungarianelephant on January 29, 2008 at 3:41 am

Spinoza - But it really does scare and annoy me that with larger numbers, atheism will inevitably have to deal with a lack of intellectual rigour amongst the majority its proponents.

Why? Religion has managed to deal with it pretty effectively for thousands of years. The vast majority of religious people don't even have a proper grasp of what it is they are supposed to believe in.

It doesn't take any great intellectual rigour to be an atheist. You just have to not believe in something for which there isn't a shred of credible evidence. It's easy.

What point am I missing here?

879. Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision

Comment #116996 by hungarianelephant on January 28, 2008 at 2:25 am

This is a fascinating discussion, but isn't anyone staggered that people would spend three years arguing about a boy's foreskin before anyone decides that the boy might be entitled to some say in the matter?

880. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115914 by hungarianelephant on January 25, 2008 at 3:11 am

bard63 - their mom is a an Anglican Buddhist

Out of interest, how does that work? Are there 3 people, all over 80, dressed in saffron and mumbling the chants?

881. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115902 by hungarianelephant on January 25, 2008 at 2:32 am

I'm confused.

If Josh was bad enough to be dragged down to Hell, how could we be sure that his letter is reliable? What if it's a ruse by Satan to turn people away from the one true and entirely different religion?

882. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115474 by hungarianelephant on January 24, 2008 at 8:21 am

I think one may find marked differences between some races, and some specific areas of the planet.

It may depend on what you test.

There's a mountain of data on educational achievement of racial groups in the US. It quite clearly shows that white children outperform their black counterparts.

However, the same data also shows that this is almost entirely due to the starting socio-economic circumstances. Once they are stripped out, there's little discernible difference. I.e. your test scores suffer because you are poor, not because you are black.

It seems reasonable to translate this into European vs. African. You could even argue that you should expect a white advantage in the US, since the ancestors took the choice to get up and move country (and might therefore be expected to be more able than average), rather than being forced to do so.

Granted, "academic test scores" is a pretty blunt instrument, but it tends to suggest that the underlying differences are slight.

Now if you were talking about cultures rather than races, that's an entirely different story. Where shall we start? India and Pakistan?

883. Banned From Church

Comment #115319 by hungarianelephant on January 24, 2008 at 2:20 am

Well for a start she should sue the county sheriff for false imprisonment, and should join the pastor as co-defendant. Since when was trespass in a church a criminal offence?

Thank FSM the county prosecutor has some sense.

I've probably missed the point of this article, haven't I?

884. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115299 by hungarianelephant on January 24, 2008 at 1:08 am

Maybe that's a little unfair. It could also be read as:
...
4. Therefore, I want my children's teachers to make stuff up in order to offset what I imagine to be the problem with evolutionary theory.

885. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115297 by hungarianelephant on January 24, 2008 at 1:07 am

What a strange article.

To summarise:
1. Darwin's theory is correct.
2. Darwin said some things which the Nazis drew on.
3. I don't like Nazis.
4. Therefore, God exists.

With a side serving of:
1. I know the above argument doesn't make sense.
2. I know the word "postmodern".
3. Therefore, it's OK. Will this do?

886. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #114859 by hungarianelephant on January 23, 2008 at 4:13 am

The UK does have a written constitution. It's just not all written in the same place, and not very coherent.

That's why Tony Blair was able to rewrite it as he went along, with or without an electoral mandate. Whatever one thinks of his policies, I don't think he can sensibly be regarded as a Hitler figure, but he nevertheless reinforces al-rawandi's point that active governments will tend to fill the void. The surprise is that it took so long.

887. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #114415 by hungarianelephant on January 22, 2008 at 7:10 am

But let's not forget that he also talks to the cabbages.

Btw, about the "armed forces" gene, does anyone think Flying Officer Wales is actually doing anything worthwhile? Surely all this army / RAF malarky is just to give him something to do. I almost feel sorry for Charles at times. He's in his 50s and still waiting for his career to start.

Then I think - nah.

888. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #114413 by hungarianelephant on January 22, 2008 at 7:05 am

That's an entirely different argument from the one you were originally making.

I don't agree with that one either, but if you want to continue the discussion, I suggest we do it in the forums. Don't want to irritate RD, do we?

889. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #114356 by hungarianelephant on January 22, 2008 at 3:58 am

Do you mind if we don't?

890. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #114354 by hungarianelephant on January 22, 2008 at 3:47 am

Often this consensus changes slowly.

Yes, that is precisely the point, and that is (partly) what a constitution is for - to manage that change and be changed in response to it. Their other point is to establish how we go about making, and changing, rules.

Now what has that got to do with your argument about the absence of absolute morality (which I never disagreed with)? Or are you suggesting that constitutions are necessarily anachronistic and shouldn't exist?

891. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #114335 by hungarianelephant on January 22, 2008 at 1:47 am

mrjonno - So what you are saying is:
(1) All morality is prevailing fashion
(2) Older morality than now is savage.

Do you not see the inconsistency here?

892. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #114048 by hungarianelephant on January 21, 2008 at 9:23 am

Well I'm glad we got that cleared up.

We don't agree at all.

Certainly, most of your random 100 would agree with whatever the prevailing fashion is (though not enough to do anything about it more strenuous than writing a strongly worded employment policy). Many would also agree that drugs are bad and that having sex with a 15 year old is a good ground for castration. It doesn't make them a moral authority.

893. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #114030 by hungarianelephant on January 21, 2008 at 8:55 am

While you say a constitution can be changed the number of times I've heard from American atheists that 'this isnt what the founding father meant' you are moving into worship.

The only version of that statement I've heard is a rebuttal to the argument that "America is a Christian Nation".

It isn't "worship" to discuss what someone's intention was. It's a standard method of interpretation of any legal document. It's still the main guiding principle in English law.

I couldn't care less about the moral views of people who have been dead for 200 years. Quite simply everyone from that age compared to modern times was a savage. Sure some were less savage than others but a moral authority today definitely not.

Are you really, seriously suggestng that the likes of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were "savages" whose opinions have less moral authority than that of, say, Bill Clinton?

And what does 'the principles on which society is organised' actually mean. I suspect even that changes with time

Of course it does. A constitution, even an unwritten one, gives you a reference point around which you can have a meaningful discussion. It can be departed from - a recent example was the dropping of Ireland's territorial claim to the six counties of Northern Ireland. But simply ignoring it and making up societal principles on the fly, which is essentially what NuLab has been up to, will always turn out to be a bad idea in the end.

894. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113980 by hungarianelephant on January 21, 2008 at 6:13 am

Just to add to RD's point, quoted by Bueller_007, the Queen did actually raise eyebrows after the 1974 election.

The result was inconclusive. Harold Wilson's Labour Party had the most seats in Parliament, though not an absolute majority. Brenda ignored this and invited the previous PM, Edward Heath, to form a government. Heath refused because he didn't think he could muster enough support, so the constitutional issue died away.

The point is that there are circumstances where it really does matter who is Head of State. And I don't much fancy it being Charles.

895. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #113977 by hungarianelephant on January 21, 2008 at 6:06 am

mrjonno - People who worship secular documents are as bad as those who worship religious ones.

The views of long dead people just are not important in modern society

That's revolutionary talk ;)

A Constitution is much more than the views of long dead people. It describes the powers of branches of government and, in most cases, the principles on which the society is organised. It represents the collected experience, and hopefully wisdom, of history. Throwing it away, or interpreting it to mean the opposite of what it actually says, means ignoring that history. This rarely turns out to be a good idea. (I appreciate that you did not go this far.)

The difference between the Constitution and a religious document is exactly the one that Huckabee identifies - that the Constitution can be changed. I see this as a strength. He clearly doesn't.

IMO the constant arguments amongst Americans about the Constitution is an excellent thing. It shows that it is living, healthy and worth fighting over. Some will believe in a more literal interpretation than others, and/or be sceptical about the value of changing it. Few would do anything which could sensibly be described as "worshipping" it, and I don't think this characterisation is helpful.

896. Honour Killings

Comment #113933 by hungarianelephant on January 21, 2008 at 3:11 am

According to Lukman Hakim, the foundation's chairman of social services, there are three "benefits" to circumcising girls.

"One, it will stabilize her libido," he said through an interpreter. "Two, it will make a woman look more beautiful in the eyes of her husband. And three, it will balance her psychology."

I call satire on this. Make a woman look more beautiful in the eyes of her husband? What sort of sicko would see a woman as more beautiful because she is circumcised?

Oh, right.

897. Mandrake: Charles's letter in support of Islamic 'fundamentalism'

Comment #113904 by hungarianelephant on January 21, 2008 at 1:30 am

Brings in net tourist dollars rather than not

Peacebuponme - Monarchists often say this, but its not exactly easy to prove.

That's because it's complete bollocks. France has been a republic for some years - and indeed several times - and still manages to be the principal recipient of US tourist money.

Who comes to England to see the Queen? The pomp and ceremony, Buckingham Palace and the Changing of the Guard, possibly. You could have all these without a monarchy, as you said. The monarchists know their position is unsupportable morally, so they have to come up with bogus economic arguments.

Though it must be said that if there were a presidential election, I would probably vote for Brenda. With all her faults, she still seems rather better than the alternatives.

898. What Religion's Blind Stranglehold on America Is Doing to Our Democracy

Comment #113899 by hungarianelephant on January 21, 2008 at 1:13 am

Nor can vaguely-worded language in the Constitution be used by judges to give them power over subjects the framers never intended our founding document to address.

He's talking about Roe v. Wade, right?

899. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112964 by hungarianelephant on January 18, 2008 at 10:42 am

I'm with Paula Kirby (112922), though I think I'd go even further.

"Conservative" and "liberal", as generally understood in US politics, don't even seem to be coherent positions. Self-described liberals emphasise personal choice, but then want the state to have a greater say, and therefore you a lesser say, in what you do with your economic resources. Self-described conservatives, at least until the Bush administration started spending like a drunken sailor, believed that you should generally be entitled to spend your money and live your life as you see fit, but then think they are entitled to tell you who you can have sex with and what you can smoke.

According to conventional political lines, you can't support both (say) low taxes and gay marriage. That makes as much sense to me as saying that you can't enjoy both football and Bach.

I have long thought that the meaningful political argument is between libertarians and authoritarians, and that left/right labels should be left in the French Revolution whence they originated.

Which means I find it pretty difficult to take the studies mentioned above seriously. Two effects of the same causes, maybe.

900. Huckabee Wants A 'Faith-based' Constitution

Comment #112720 by hungarianelephant on January 18, 2008 at 2:01 am