851. What is science for?

Comment #185581 by Quetzalcoatl on May 28, 2008 at 5:58 am

ASMarques-

I'm sincerely sorry about that and I'm out.

Bye.

You'll be back, probably within a few days. Peddling anti-Holocaust drivel is your obsession.

852. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #185288 by Quetzalcoatl on May 27, 2008 at 11:23 am

MaxD-

Off topic,
Tecumotzin is helping Hercules fight of a Skrull invasion. Why aren't you helping out? This seems rather cowardly of you.

Well excuse me! I've been a little busy fighting off Galactus, the Devourer of Worlds. Don't worry, I'm currently aboard a dreadnought crewed by an army of my finest mutant hybrids. We'll arrive shortly.

853. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #185176 by Quetzalcoatl on May 27, 2008 at 6:31 am

Lastgreekstanding-

you sure went to a lot of effort with that post, didn't you. Just in case you're not aware: it's not actually illegal for someone to change their mind.

854. Repulsive but right

Comment #184743 by Quetzalcoatl on May 26, 2008 at 5:14 am

Corylus-

agreed, but I think the author is claiming the first point.

855. What is science for?

Comment #184225 by Quetzalcoatl on May 24, 2008 at 2:54 am

ASMarques-

I will first let you catch the flavour of Wiki-obfuscation by commenting on a few ridiculous bits within the link from the Quetzalcoatl guy that you mention, in connection, by the way, with the "references" sent by the Teratornis guy (why is it that so many of these insecure self-proclaimed "most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web" like to wear plumage on their tails, I wonder).

Witty. Since you're so good at providing links and quotes, perhaps you would like to direct everyone to the precise comment where I described myself as one of the "most intelligent and erudite individuals to be found on the Web". If you can't, I must conclude that you are talking out of your arse.

856. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184076 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Al-Rawandi-

Try this.

857. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184068 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Al-rawandi-

what I did was paste the link directly into the post, then submit it. Then I went into edit. When you do that you see the link with the URL reference stuff around it. From there you can just change the name part. The Comment Posting Guidelines explain it better than I can!

858. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184066 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Corylus-

I intended to spell it that way before I did it, but I forgot! I will improve in the future, promise. Did you follow the link within my blog post?

859. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184058 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Corylus-

the good thing about Wikipedia is that quite often its articles reference where they got their information from, allowing you to read those sources for more detail.

If you want something to cheer you up, try this.

860. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184057 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Don't mention logic, or, should I say, LOGIC. We do not want to summon the gibbering imbecile.

861. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184052 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Bonzai-

I am expecting Taratonis to show up any time now with a fiction length post to laud the greatness of Wikipedia. Afterall this is his second passion.

Don't mention P.O. He can hear people typing the phrase.

862. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184047 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Al-

if you're a hypocrite, so am I and practically everybody else on this site!

I think lastgreekstanding is counting on the fact that not everyone is familiar with the context of your discussions. But many of us are. I notice that he emphatically did not link from the thread in which you were actually discussing Chomsky with _riverrun_ and Windweaver. I wonder why that was?

I suppose you should be flattered. It probably took him a while to trawl through your comments until he found one to quote out of context!

863. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184029 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Lastgreekstanding-

Who the fuck cites Wikipedia? You don't do that. It's not an authorative source!

I link to Wikipedia quite often. It's very useful.

864. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184014 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Stella-

Proof that I am highly evolved:

I have no wisdom teeth.

Show-off. :(

865. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184011 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 11:58 am

Steveroot-

"painless dentistry" is a good oxymoron.

866. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183973 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 10:41 am

masterslrig-

what a pointless and patronising comment.

867. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183929 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 7:58 am

hungarianelephant-

like I said, I was being vague!

868. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183923 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 7:48 am

Bonzai-

I think a reverse question can be asked of you, do you think there is anything which should not become private property?

I'll be honest with you and say that I'm not sure of the answer to that. I'll have to think about it.

Being very vague, I suppose one example might be that I wouldn't like to see the healthcare system becoming fully privatised. Reason being, obviously, that provision of healthcare to those that need it but cannot afford to pay for it would be restricted.

I'll give it some thought.

869. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183905 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 6:38 am

Re the point about property, D'Arcy said:

As the means of living will be commonly owned by everyone to be used for the common good, much like the atmosphere today, there won't be any private property in the means of living

But what is "private property?" Do you have personal possessions? What is yours and what is state-owned?

870. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183857 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 3:35 am

Phil Rimmer-

good post. A socialist world would inevitably require a state or central authority to govern it, despite what D'Arcy might say. Nothing would get done otherwise.

871. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183835 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:44 am

D'Arcy-

I am not trying to dodge, I'm just glad that you're thinking about it. By "central authority" I take it you mean a state of some kind. The state is the representative of the ruling class, whether it be in chattel slavery, (ancient Greece and Rome), feudalism, ( Europe up till the beginnings of capitalism around 1700), or emergent capitalism proper from then till now. As Marx said in 1847, the state is the executive committee of the ruling class, and it's a view I agree with. The state as an institution is only required where private property interests are concerned. For further information you could read Lewis Henry Morgan's "Ancient Society", an American who lived among the Iroquois Indians and certainly not a socialist. Engels, certainly a socialist, also paid tribute to Morgan and expanded on his ideas in his "Origin of the State, Private Property and the Family".

This doesn't really answer my question at all. You assume that by "central authority" I mean "the state". But in the past you have talked about socialism only being truly attainable if it is implemented worldwide. It would be unreasonable to call the central authority for that transition "the state", since the inevitable question would be "which state"?

To be brief, once socialism has been decided as an objective and has been consciously brought into being by the majority of the world's population, workers, using the available political apparatus, then the need for the state as the agent for private property owners will disappear. If you think I'm talking nonsense, just think back to the last strike by workers which the government was in favour of.

Sigh. My point was that the only way socialism could be brought into being would be via a central authority or, as you word it, "the available politicial apparatus". Implementing it would, as I have said several times now, require massive bureaucracy and centralised control. Frankly, it's a little naive to think that a transition from a capitalistic to socialistic society could be achieved without it.

You seem to have ignored another of my points. Once again: implementation of socialist ideals would require the central authority to have a great deal of power and control. Human nature being what it is, why would they give that up? How would "the people" be able to make them, as the central authority would control the police and armed forces? Russia is a excellent example. What could the Russian people have done to remove Stalin from power? Sod all.

The state as an institution is only required where private property interests are concerned

I completely disagree with this. The state also has a hand in education, health care, social security, administration, utilities. With all private property interests gone, there would have to be some kind of authority that people could apply to for the roads to be repaired, or for support. Thus it's hard to see how the state/central authority would disappear.

And you haven't addressed the points in the rest of my comment: here they are again.

I will repeat it so that the straw man societies of North Korea, Cuba, Russia, China etc, which are all capitalist, are not used as arguments against the idea of socialism.

Socialism: a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living by, and in the interests of the whole community.

Another dodge. If all those countries say they're socialist or communist, why should we not agree with that?

IF socialism is ever established it will be brought into being by a willing population, not forced from above

How else would socialism be established in a capitalistic society without the regulation of a central authority? If you think there is a better way, by all means enlighten us.

1) How are resources allocated?

By democratic control to where they are needed

Flawed. How are people supposed to know where things are needed? How are the needy to inform a large group of their need without registering it to a central authority?

2) How are people prevented from starting private sytems of finance.

As the means of living will be commonly owned by everyone to be used for the common good, much like the atmosphere today, there won't be any private property in the means of living.

Extremely interesting. What about homes and personal possessions? Pictures of loved ones?

4) How do you prevent abuses of minority groups and parties?

As all individuals in a socialist society will have equal social standing and equal rights, all will have the same opportunity to express their point of view. The majority voice must always be the deciding one.

So in other words, minority groups would be stuffed. And if a majority of people voted that a minority group (for example "the gays" or "immigrants") were to be persecuted, who would protect them?

And finally, D'Arcy, Al's definition of socialism isn't particularly important. Nor is mine, Hungarian Elephant's, or anyone else on the thread. The reason for that is that you are the one making the assertions about socialism. We are merely pointing out the flaws. The question is, can you show where we are going wrong?

I'm waiting.

872. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183704 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm

D'Arcy-

First of all, IF socialism is ever established it will require the conscious and democratic majority to vote for it and sort out its particular organisation. It's not for me to give you a blue print

This is a dodge. You must have some idea about how it would be implemented. This relates to my point back in comment 511 that such implementation would inevitably require massive bureaucracy and centralised control, since there would have to be a central point that regulates the other points across the globe. As I have said before, and have as yet received no answer: with human nature being what it is, what makes you so convinced that such a central authority would relinquish its grip on power, or indeed that it could be removed by "the will of the people" given that it would control the police and armed forces.

I will repeat it so that the straw man societies of North Korea, Cuba, Russia, China etc, which are all capitalist, are not used as arguments against the idea of socialism.

Socialism: a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living by, and in the interests of the whole community.

Another dodge. If all those countries say they're socialist or communist, why should we not agree with that?

IF socialism is ever established it will be brought into being by a willing population, not forced from above

How else would socialism be established in a capitalistic society without the regulation of a central authority? If you think there is a better way, by all means enlighten us.

1) How are resources allocated?

By democratic control to where they are needed

Flawed. How are people supposed to know where things are needed? How are the needy to inform a large group of their need without registering it to a central authority?

2) How are people prevented from starting private sytems of finance.

As the means of living will be commonly owned by everyone to be used for the common good, much like the atmosphere today, there won't be any private property in the means of living.

Extremely interesting. What about homes and personal possessions? Pictures of loved ones?

4) How do you prevent abuses of minority groups and parties?

As all individuals in a socialist society will have equal social standing and equal rights, all will have the same opportunity to express their point of view. The majority voice must always be the deciding one.

So in other words, minority groups would be stuffed. And if a majority of people voted that a minority group (for example "the gays" or "immigrants") were to be persecuted, who would protect them?

And finally, D'Arcy, Al's definition of socialism isn't particularly important. Nor is mine, Hungarian Elephant's, or anyone else on the thread. The reason for that is that you are the one making the assertions about socialism. We are merely pointing out the flaws. The question is, can you show where we are going wrong?

I'm waiting.

873. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183558 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 9:09 am

mordacious1-

I tend to agree with you on this.

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

Comment #183537 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 8:31 am

My one quibble with this article is that it doesn't define how far out they went to get a sample of "nearby stars".

875. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183525 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 8:04 am

Tezcatlipoca-

I'm afraid that you are wrong, my mighty but nevertheless slightly inferior Central American fellow deity. The turtle is clearly one of the progeny of Great A'Tuin.

876. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183516 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 7:50 am

al-rawandi-

I don't know about that. Anna looks quite small compared to that turtle. It must be due to bad photography.

877. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #183476 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 7:01 am

Perhaps these are the same witches who were making the men's penises shrink that was reported before.

878. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183456 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 6:40 am

Anna-

that's a very strange picture! I didn't realise you were so short.

Al-Rawandi-

we shouldn't bomb Romania. It might make Dracula angry.

879. What is science for?

Comment #183407 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 4:15 am

To anyone who is still bothering to debate AS Marques, some of these links might be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Use_of_gas_chambers

880. Missing matter found in deep space

Comment #183398 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 3:30 am

JeremyH-

Dark matter isn't the "god" of astrophysicists, not by a long shot.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13362-giant-ropes-of-dark-matter-found-in-new-sky-survey.html

881. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183375 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 2:19 am

Clearmind said:

Sorry Pal I watched beavers a lot with my students to show how God's creation is.

What kind of school is this? Classes at my school never did any beaver-watching. It was strictly an extra-curricular thing. :-)

882. What is science for?

Comment #183370 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 2:12 am

Epeeist-

do you charge for introducing deluded people to each other, or is it a service that you perform for free?

883. In God's Name

Comment #183234 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Mark Smith-

Aisha being the girl Muhammad married at age six and had sex with at age nine.

Edited because I am apparently unable to spell the name Muhammad.

884. In God's Name

Comment #183228 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Mark Smith-

and don't even think about mentioning the whole Aisha issue.

885. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183210 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Peacebeuponme-

I've edited my earlier post with the info. But bear in mind that development of nervous system in no way equals consciousness.

886. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183203 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Peacebeuponme-

Al said well-spoken. You're getting confused.

887. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183197 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Peacebeuponme-

development of consciousness is late in the process. I don't think the nervous system develops until 26 to 28 weeks (I'll check that).

EDIT- 28 weeks is when the nervous system has developed sufficiently for it to control some of the foetal body functions.

888. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183182 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Fides-

We are digressing though. Late term abortion is wrong

That's a very definite statement. Define "late term". What about in the case of rape? Domestic violence? The discovery that the foetus is developing abnormally, ie with half its brain missing?

889. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183038 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 9:06 am

Clearmind-

I'm going to try reasoning with you, for all the good it will do.

Your Prophet's life has been written about in holy books, and has been historically documented. His actions are held up as an example to Muslims everywhere.

Anna, to my knowledge, has not been written about in any holy book (although if I ever get around to writing my own sacred text, she and many other RD.netters may get a mention). There is no parallel between your prophet and Anna.

Notice that Al-Rawandi has not insulted your wife. Don't insult Anna.

890. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182965 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 6:55 am

all-windi-

where's your logics? You can't pee in Quetz's ear when bananas has your nose. evolins not see what eagle sees. He sees from high up on his cloud. he sees you crazy, not listen to prophets, think he talks about meatballs. BUT MEATBALLS ARE NOT PURPLE. Haha, wibble.

blackwolf-

where antworld come from, not from evolins, nor, russell not know. come from snake, worship snake.

891. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182955 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 6:42 am

all-windi-

why you not listen to story of Bertrand Russell and Mona Lisa. She say to him, listen with nose, not with eyes. Russelssay you crazy, I wait for this orange to change into nose, then I use it to listen with. But orange have meatball inside? Mean what? Evolins not know. Evolins think human come from water worm, ha, but where water worm come from. Not from Mona lisa, she think you all crazy. Where your nose, all-windi, maybe bananas have your nose in hole in ground.

892. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182941 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 6:27 am

Clearminds say evolins smear, but not know prophets wrong about blindwatchmaker, haha where is Mona Lisa's meatballs? Not come from water-worm, children in my class think evolins crazy. A mouth belongs to its owner, but not his nose. How old is oranges?

893. Missing matter found in deep space

Comment #182912 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 5:47 am

Everyone-

this article has a lot more detail:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080520152013.htm

894. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #182869 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 4:27 am

CraigB-

relax. Nobody said that you can't be an atheist and disagree with aspects of abortion.

895. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182845 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 3:21 am

Seriously? How has Clearmind not been banned by now? Now he's suggesting Al-Rawandi is a paedophile/involved with Fanusi, and has mentioned Anna again. What the hell?

Al-Rawandi- I think you struck a nerve.

Clearmind- what religion do you believe in? What nationality are you?

896. What is science for?

Comment #182822 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:42 am

Peacebeuponme-

AS Marques' claims have been tackled on the original thread (Richard Dawkins On The Big Questions). Offhand, Cartomancer had some things to say, so did others.

897. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #182784 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 1:11 am

I've said it on my own blog and others, and I'll say it again: this is excellent news, and a victory for science, rationality and women's rights. The reduction campaign, most prominently the 20 week campaign, was funded by a raft of fundamentalist Christian groups, who obviously didn't pray hard enough.

898. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182565 by Quetzalcoatl on May 20, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Freethinker79-

have you gone through the entire thread? There were numerous posts dealing with the movie's claims. I see that you are a new poster. Will you be sticking around?

899. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182479 by Quetzalcoatl on May 20, 2008 at 8:12 am

Bert the magic penguin's next opponent is the serpent of Midgard. Bert readies himself.....in an ironic twist, the penguin slips on a patch of ice and falls down! The serpent seizes its opportunity and devours the penguin. A sad end for the magical bird.

900. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #182407 by Quetzalcoatl on May 20, 2008 at 1:43 am

D'Arcy-

Quetz, my view is that there have been no communist / socialist countries. The idea is an absurdity. Countries don't exist in isolation, and countries are political constructions, e.g. India, Pakistan, Israel, Serbia, Russia, England, Scotland, USA to name a few.

You seem to be using the "No true Socialist" argument here. Thanks for listing the countries, by the way.

While it's true that countries don't exist in isolation, I fail to see why that should be a barrier. This is especially true when you consider Russia and China, very large countries with large populations and significant natural resources. If they can't implement it successfully, who can? Russia had over 70 years to do it, and failed miserably. To me that says something about the viability of the system as a whole. Saying that socialism will only succeed if implemented worldwide is a way of attempting to gloss over its abject failure in every country that it has been implemented in.

The idea of socialism is that the resources of the world should be used for the benefit of the whole population and not to support a privileged elite and an under privileged majority. It's an idea I agree with.

You seem to have ignored the point, made by both Al-Rawandi and myself, that the implementation of this ideal would require massive bureaucracy and centralised control. Once again, how likely is it that the central authority will be willing to let go of the power that they hold, the power to literally control people's lives? Human nature again.

Also, as I said before, what is to stop the central committee investing in projects to the detriment of the people- NK's nuclear program being a prime example. The committee would have control of the army and the police, so precisely what would the people be able to do about it?

Another point you've omitted: central control will never be dissolved, since there would be no mechanism for stopping individuals from using alternative capitalistic finance systems, which people would flock to.