51. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189126 by Bonzai on June 5, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Steve

It is interesting what has been labeled "straight" at various times. Apparently you are still straight in some circles if you have sex with a transexual, or a ladyboy, or an effeminate man and so on.

"Gayness" is a fairly recent, mostly Western cultural construct. There was no such category in history. There have always been people who have sex with members of the same gender, some prefer it that way, a small number are exclusively sexually attracted to the same sex.

In many cultures,--all patriarchies,-- the way of grouping people is based on whether you are "active" or "passive" in sex, not based on who you have sex with, The male "fuckee" is considered somewhat pathetic, but the "fucker" loses none of his masculinity in this scheme, So I think there is a bit of anachronism in trying to say that it is hypocrisy that some people don't admit to be gay even though they fuck other guys, this is not the way they label people in some cultures.

Welcome back.

EDIT:Diacanu

Sorry man, I don't want to comment on the specific act that you describe. To each his own, it's a free society.

52. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189121 by Bonzai on June 5, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Accoding to wiki the Chinese name is "Hanzi",

That is a sound translation based on Mandarin pronunciation, it is not exactly the same as the Japanese way of pronouncing it, but it is very close like I said, it is even closer in some older Chinese dialects such as Cantonese. The writing is exactly the same (EDIT: It is like you may pronounce the name of the same fruit as "To-ma-to" or "To-mei-to", it is the same in writing)

Korea calls them "Hanja", and Vietnam calls them "Han Tu".

They probably use a small subset of them, but I don't think nearly as widespread as the Japanese.

53. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189117 by Bonzai on June 5, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Carrot juice is murder.

Well, you think that is a joke but there are indeed people who think eating root vegetable is unethical because it kills the plant. They think it is only ethical to eat fruit and nuts.

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

54. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189112 by Bonzai on June 5, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Mitchell

Although I wasn't saying that "Kanji" was a chinese word

I think it is, its Japanese rendition is exactly like the Chinese version and even the pronunciation is VERY close.

but the chinese still use it as well as plenty of other asian countries, they just all have different names for it.

Actually the Chinese have exactly the same name for it. Or, rather, it is one way the Chinese refer to their characters. There are other names too depending on context. I am not aware of other ethnically non Chinese Asian countries that use Chinese characters wholesale like the Japanese. The Koreans may use some, but I can be wrong even on that.

55. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189103 by Bonzai on June 5, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Why are we drawn into debating the merit of bestiality with Appleby? I think even by entering into such a debate gives the false impression that somehow having sex with animals or bikes may have any relevance in discussions on homosexuality and heterosexuality, or gay adoption in particular. Since according to Appleby's own argument the rules that govern human relationship don't apply that should be the end of the story.

Another thing is, there is a difference between allowing some kind of behaviour and celebrating it. Even if Appleby manages to somehow prove that his cat enjoys fucking him and he is therefore not guilty of cruelty towards animal by forcing himself on the cat, it is still not an argument that society should institutionalize their relationship and treat them as a "couple" and allows them to adopt children as "parents". So this is really a big diversion irrelevant to any discussion,

Edit Now according to my therapist friend a very small number of people apparently have sexual fetish in objects.Other than being weird, having a sexual "relationship" with bikes and household appliances is not illegal and it doesn't raise any ethical problem. But no one would argue that society should recognize such "relationships".

Leave Appleby alone, maybe he can persuade his cat that his argument is sound.

56. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188220 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 11:38 am

You're very naughty, Philip. Have a cup of tea and calm yourself.

Philip prefers tea. :)

57. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188213 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 11:15 am

PBUM

There's no getting away from the fact that we have genetic mother and father roles built in, though of course this varies from person to person.

It would be foolish to deny altogether that there is a genetic factor, but I am not sure how rigidly it dictates parental roles. Perhaps a lot of the apparent rigidity of gender roles in relation to children rearing is more cultural than genetic, as there is actually a very wide range of models for children raising throughout history and across the globe. We should not commit the fallacy of taking a local snapshot of our own society at the present and mistaken it as something universal.

Consider the Moso, for example.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eoTrARDa8BU&feature=related

Granted that this particular kind of society is very rare if not unique but it demonstrates still that there is nothing that genetically compels us to raise children based on the modern, nuclear family model of the Western world. If anything, it is arguable that their lives are less affected by technology and therefore may in some sense closer to what genetics dictates for parental roles,--if genetics is indeed a significant factor in this, after all else are taken into consideration,

58. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188210 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 11:01 am

epeeist

How about "La Cage aux Folles"?

IMO it is marginally better only because there is no Robin Williams in it.

59. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188199 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 10:41 am

PBUM

Its whether or not a child is better off having one male and one female as parents, all other things being equal. I think this is a fair line of enquiry.

I agree that this is a potentially legitimate question. But one has to be mindful that the question is often asked with a lot of unspoken assumptions of "male" and "female" gender roles which are artificially constructed. So one has to be careful.

60. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188198 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 10:35 am

Podaar

You might do well to watch 'The Bird Cage." I can think of many reasons why Nathan Lane's character is a better role model than my own Mother...not least of which, he's a better dresser. :)

You can't be serious. IMO that is a horrible flick. As a homosexual person I quite object to the way the film stereotypes homosexuals. Good god I would kill myself if I grow up to be like these two :) Robin Williams was at his most annoying even by his standard.

61. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188193 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 10:29 am

Doctor Dee

Anyone who is concerned about the sexual orientation (whatever it is) of potential adopters has some serious issues going on. As if it matters what the parents like to do to each other in bed.

Yes, exactly.Appleby should also ask whether heterosexual couples who are into anything other than the good ole missionary position should be allowed to adopt children, Gee, it must be terribly traumatic for a child to be aware that mom is a cock sucker.

62. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187978 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 5:18 am

epeeist

I have to wonder, how old is this guy? He actually comes across as very juvenile.

Really? To me he came across as a bitter, hateful middle aged or old man(probably in his late 40's or up)

63. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187973 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 5:07 am

Appleby

This is an illustration of your double standard.So stop insisting that we should all accept gay rights without question when you clearly do not acknowledge the rights of those who practice bestiality

How is it double standard if there is no equivalence? You started off declaring, without any justification, that there is a parallelism between homosexuality and bestiality, yet by your own admission bestiality belongs to a totally different category since it doesn't not involve human partners, and that the rules apply to human relationship don't apply,--like consent.

So there is no parallelism afterall.

Since the two situations are not equivalent by your own admission what the hell are you talking about other than being deliberately offensive? Why don't you take your amateurish attempt at sophistry and shove it up your cat's vagina and take a hike?

64. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187967 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 4:58 am

No, I want *you* to tell me why you do not condone bestiality. Is it a "species" thing? And on what scientific evidence is this used to draw the line?

As I noted in my last post, and by your own admission, bestiality is a completely unrelated issue. Nice try to muddle the water once again, I won't take the bait and I urge others not to as well.

65. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187960 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 4:52 am

Appleby

The very fact that "consent" is a requirement for sex between *humans* (and this is fair), makes it inapplicable to animals as a basis for inherently forbidding bestiality (animals can't give consent even if they wanted to). So the "consent" argument fails there.

So you agree that sexual partnership between *humans* are fundamentally different from what you may do to your cat and that different rules apply, that means bestiality, whatever your view on it, belongs to a different category. So why are you keep bringing it up to muddle the water?

66. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187956 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 4:47 am

Quetzalcoatl

Homosexuality involves two consenting partners, which is a valid basis for condoning it. Since bestiality does not entail an element of consent, you cannot attempt to claim that the two are somehow analogous when they are not.

And bestiality doesn't entail partnership either.

In the context of adoption, until Appleby can make the case that the cat he fucks can be a good parent for his adopted child, this is a completely stupid argument.

67. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187953 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 4:43 am

Hence why it's silly to make consent a criterion for sex with an animal.

Cruelty to animals is a criminal offence, you are welcome to try to make the case that your cat enjoys
being fucked by you.

68. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187940 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 4:26 am

The status quo.

This is not even an argument.

69. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187938 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 4:24 am

M Murray

. That is whether not having one parent of each gender has implications for the way the child grows up -- maybe confusion in their own gender identity ?

As you pointed out the evidence suggests there is no such implication, but even if there is, I don't see what is so wrong and undesirable in being a bit confused in one's gender identity which may spur a bit of explorations and see where that may lead. It is part of a process of self discovery. I think gender identity is partially socially constructed.

70. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187931 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 4:16 am

So what is the technical difference between "condoning "bestiality and heterosexuals who have sex but plan not to have kids?

71. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187881 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 1:05 am

Not so. Men who are have been brought up to value fatherhood as a mark of honour are more likely to invest in the moral and character upbringing of their children. Conversely, a society that denigrates fatherhood, and paints fathers as schmucks, will tend to produce men who regard the whole thing as a burden.

I think there is an unspoken and unwarranted assumption here, namely, that the article you cited seems to equate certain traditional attitudes as good moral. The argument is therefore circular: traditional way of upbringing instills good moral and character because the author defines good moral and character to be those very attitudes that a "patriarchy" would cherish.

I am not so sure that many men see having children as a burden is the result of "denigration of fatherhood", which I think is rather imaginary. Among other things, having children is a real burden with increasing expectations for quality of life coupled with less secure, lower paying jobs. At least based on anecdotal evidence, many men I know put off having a family simply because they can't afford it.

72. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187876 by Bonzai on June 3, 2008 at 12:10 am

Diacanu

Fanusi Khiyal-

non-patriachal societies

Define and identify one.

The Moso.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eoTrARDa8BU&feature=related

73. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187874 by Bonzai on June 2, 2008 at 11:58 pm

Fanusi

The swing towards conservatism on in America is fueled by the fact that the patriachal values of the Red States encourage larger familes and greater investment in children.

Hmm.. I think you are confusing quantity with quality, having more children is not the same as greater investment in children. For one thing education is a major investment in children and people who think that children should be spoon fed creationism, among other absurdities, can't be taking education seriously.

EDIT: Take another example, your favourite target: the Muslim world. Muslim countries have very high birth rate, but the only reason that this absurdly high birth rate can be sustained is because of Western technology and medicine. If the world is still submerged in the kind of "stable patriarchy" that you argue for,--as a devil's advocate, presumably,--then these life sustaining technologies would not have been invented and Malthusian rule would operate. In other words, nature would drastically limit how many children they produce can actually survive.

74. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187872 by Bonzai on June 2, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Appleby

Should we do so just to accommodate the possibility of homosexual parenting? Can this be extended to say, people who practice bestiality? Are they also equally fit to be parents until proven otherwise? If not, why not?

Why not?! Do I have to spell it out for you?!

If you can make a case that the sheep you are fucking can be a nurturing mother to the children you plan to adopt, please be my guest.

You may want to argue that raping sheeps should be legalized but it has nothing to do with adoption by gay couples.

75. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187785 by Bonzai on June 2, 2008 at 4:33 pm

...zombies ARE scientifically impossible

Then how do you explain wooter?

76. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187695 by Bonzai on June 2, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Appleby

What's the matter? Can't prove that homosexual parenting is equal to hetereosexual parenting? Or am I supposed to assume it is and prove otherwise? While I'm at it, am I also supposed to assume that there are pink elephants on Mars until proven otherwise?

There is a difference, but so what? There are differences between children raised in immigrant households and those who aren't as well.The point is why is the homosexuality of the adopted parents a "relevant" difference.

Before you can even test your hypothesis, you have to have one first. So what are the relevant differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals in child rearing according to you? C'mon, be precise about your hypothesis.

EDIT Indeed you make an even stronger claim. You don't just say there is a difference, but that somehow homosexuality of the adoptive parents would be a "bad" difference. Einstein was no doubt "different", but it was not a shortcoming C'mon, tell us preciselyin what sense that homosexual adaption is bad for the children and prove it.

77. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187681 by Bonzai on June 2, 2008 at 1:00 pm

" I have two fathers"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qf0puHJ-KM

A beautiful song that hopefully would induce heart attacks in people like Appleby.

78. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187676 by Bonzai on June 2, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Appleby

Because it's different from everyday children with real, biological parents (one male, one female) who aren't, under any circumstances, deemed to be inadequate for being heterosexual.

"Everyday children" come from all kinds of parental backgrounds. Some have rich parents, some have poor ones; some are raised by birth parents, some are adopted; some are whites, others are black, Asians, aboriginal or mix race.. Out of all the diversities, why should the adopted parents' homosexuality be highlighted and underscored as a difference important enough to warrant particular attention and scrutiny?

A few decades ago inter-racial marriage was frowned upon and children of mix race parents would be considered "different from everyday children". If society has adopted your way of thinking couples of different race would not be allowed to have children.

What constitute relevant differences in social situations are value judgments, not objective facts. What someone considers to be important difference tells us more about the society and the person who makes the evaluation than the situation itself. Your insistence on focusing on the sexuality of adoptive parents without being able to articulate any rational argument for your attention indeed reveals a lot of your bigotry,

The thing is, with homosexuals, we simply don't know and we cannot ignore the fact that they are homosexuals.

Who are "we"? You are only speaking for bigots like yourself.

79. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186217 by Bonzai on May 29, 2008 at 11:57 pm

mordacious1

. If this "victim" is having problems, the burden should be on him to provide the double blind study, then sue in civil court.

Suppose the double blind experiments turn out to be positive, then what? This is such a small group that I doubt that it can be used as a meaningful sample to draw any general conclusion. All you can infer from a positive result would be that perhaps they have peculiar physiology, it is like some people are allergic to peanuts. This may be a result of interest to scientists, and certainly the doctors or psychiatrists of these people, as the case may be, but I don't see how it should affect the Wi-Fi policy either way.

Since the government apparently thinks that this kind of experiments are relevant to their decision making, it should pay for it no matter what the outcome.

80. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186211 by Bonzai on May 29, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Steveroot

At each location they are asked to describe their sensations to staff who also do not know where the "EM " locations are (this is the "double" part of the "double -blind"). The results are analysed. Mill's Methods could be used here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill's_Methods

Again, what is your point?

Let's say their conditions are not directly "caused" by em field but indirectly by the anxiety about it, so what? The fact is that their symptoms are real.Psychology is a reality of the human experience.

If the objective of your double blind experiment is to understand the physiological effect of em field then it is clearly inadequate because you need theories in physics and physiology to do that.Double blind experiment doesn't answer why ("Why" may or may not be the relevant question, depending on the context, for people in charge of buildings it is not, see below)

If the objective is to find out whether some people develop certain symptoms when they think they are exposed to em radiation,--whether they actually are,-- then we already know the answer.

f the EM radiation actually has physiological effects on these people, then this is *not* psychosomatic.

What difference does it make for policy makers? Whether it is psychosomatic or not, we do know for sure that only a very small number of people are affected. Policy makers should base their decision on that. We know that some people suffer hay fever and it is a "real" condition, but no city planner would think we should get rid of all lawns and trees because of that.

If evidence indicates these people are being harmed by the EM radiation, steps should be taken to reduce or eliminate it. We would do the same for the Snail Darter.

"Evidence" for what? The only evidence that is irrefutable,--assuming these people are not lying,-- in this discussion is that a very small number of people have very low tolerance for em radiation whatever the reason may be. Whatever theory that may explain it has no bearing on policy making, as far as I can tell.

I think it is important to know what your objective is and ask the right question before you talk about "evidence" like a broken tape recorder, as the evidence for A may have little relevance in answering question B.

Sorry to be harsh, but you sound like someone who has only read a few second hand "what is" books on the scientific method and think that you know what you are talking about. This is unfortunately too common on this site.

81. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186130 by Bonzai on May 29, 2008 at 4:30 pm

dloubet

I say we test them in a double-blind experiment to see if they're as sensitive as they say they are. And if they're not, they foot the bill for the experiment, and the lawyers.

steveroot

There is much less (if any) evidence for the problem these folks claim. Let the blind studies commence. Meanwhile, yes, this *is* completely crazy. ;-)

I don't really see your point. What is it that you try to establish with double blind experiments?

Hypersensitivity to em radiation may be psychosomatic, but as long as these people are not lying willfully, it is still "real" to them in terms of health impacts.

On the other hand, should the double blind experiments turn out to be positive, it doesn't follow that it is reasonable to ban wi fi in all public buildings just because of a rare affliction. It may mean these people should stay away from cities or wrap themselves in tin foil just like people with no immunity have to stay in bubbles.

Whether their "affliction" is "real" in the "objective" sense really has little to do with how one should handle the complaints.

Edit
The scientific method doesn't give you useful answers if you are not asking the right question in first place.

82. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185631 by Bonzai on May 28, 2008 at 8:34 am

You also mention the West Bank and the Israelis wanting it for it's resources (what resources?)

How about water from the Jordan river?

83. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185460 by Bonzai on May 27, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Goldy

I don't know what goes on in rural China, but female infanticide apparently happens, as in India, quite often. What difference that with honour killings in the grand scheme of things?

I don't know about India, but for China, the difference with honour killing is that the perpetrators of infanticides and selling of females don't have any grand theory to justify their acts, they are just criminals and are seen as such by the authority. I don't think even they themselves think they are doing God's work.

84. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185450 by Bonzai on May 27, 2008 at 8:34 pm

HunterSolomon

I'm still completely astounded to see that there are still quite a few people on this board who think criticizing Islam is racism.

Well, criticizing Islam is not racism in and of itself, but you can't deny that in the real world some people criticize Islam because of racism, they are the people who bash immigrants in general and Islam happens to be a convenient excuse against Muslims,--most of whom do happen to be non white.

85. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185110 by Bonzai on May 27, 2008 at 2:03 am

People can do the right thing for the wrong reason.

I suspect the Camdeners are at least a little bit motivated by racism and xenophobia.They would probably be just as upset if a large number of Chinese atheists want to move in.Aside from Pauline Hanson actually being a serious politician for a while, my brother lived in Australia for a few years and he experienced Aussie "hospitality" first hand, like landlords telling him they don't rent to Asians.

However, their paranoia may be justified with regard to Islam. The article doesn't say anything about the nature of the school, but these days a lot of them seem to be Wahabi indoctrination camps funded by the Saudis.

I agree with Fanusi to the extent that Islam is a dangerous ideology and a large number of unintegrated Muslims in any country is almost certainly going to create problems.

However, I also think it is wrong to see all Muslims as just automatons who think of nothing but Islam. Many Muslims in the U.S. and Canada do integrate well into their host countries and they are not a problem.

There have to be incentives for Muslims to integrate and room for them to integrate into, I think Fanusi's all stick and no carrot approach is counter productive because it would drive even the moderates to close rank with the radicals if they feel they are being attacked as a group by the mainstream society.

That perception of persecutions, sometimes not without justifications, is perhaps a reason why many Muslims are reluctant to speak out against the extremists. Another reason is that the truly integrated probably don't think they have any more responsibility to speak out than the rest of us. I mean, why the hell should I be expected to speak out more than other Canadians about human rights abuse in China? I have no connection to the place whatsoever.

And oh please, Robert Spencer and Hugh FitzGerald of the Jihad Watch are just a couple of hacks. Just because they can write good polemics and manage to read a few books in translations don't make them "scholars".Walid Shoebat is not a very credible person because, what the hell do we really expect him to say, now that he is paid and protected by his Israeli friends? A smart man knows which side his toast is buttered, and Mr.Shoebat is not stupid by all accounts.

86. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184087 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm

No person wants such detailed micro-management, humans are too independent for that, as a species.

I think you are confusing Marx with someone else. I am no Marx expert, but I did read a bit more than the Manifesto, I would be interested to see a reference in which Marx proposed a blueprint of "detailed micro-management" for a communist society.

He was actually rather sketchy about what a communist society would be like except for some general slogans and soundbites. He was content to leave all the details to the imagination. Most of his works were criticism of capitalism actually.

87. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184085 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 2:47 pm

I should also add that in Marx's time "freedom of the press" was a luxury of those who could actually read or have the time to read, which would exclude many people. It was almost a status symbol.

It is sadly still the case in many third world countries, including the ME. Why do people vote religious parties in Egypt and Turkey, for example? Partly it is because of religiosity, but partly I think is because only the religious nuts talk about actually bread and butter issues rather than freedom that many in those places don't have the means to purchase.

88. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184081 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 2:29 pm

His attack on freedom of the press was another disappointing comment.

You make it sounds like he advocated censorship. That was not what he said if you read in context. His point was that freedom of the press was mere window dressing, people could rant and ventilate but they couldn't do much to actually change things on a fundamental level, say, economics.

Thus he argued, freedom of the press" was only a kind of "Bourgeois freedom", which was a counterfeit freedom that legitimized true oppression by giving a wrong impression of freedom and fairness.

Whether you agree with him or not, he was definitely not saying the state should shut down the press, as you seem to suggest. He was saying mere freedom to talk, and presumably on topics that only interested the relatively well off and educated, was not far enough.

89. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184072 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Let's be honest, Marx espoused nasty and vicious doctrines, full stop.

I don't know if anyone would consider his anti-semitic (or self hating) rants to be Marxist "doctrine", including Marx himself. Anti-Semitism and racism were common and almost conventional at the time. Engels was even a bigger idiot to suggest that a black acquaintance of his should move to the zoo.

No one claims that Marx was a perfect human being and that he was to be an example for all mankind, so the logic that we used against Muslims about Muhammad's personal conduct does not apply here.

I also think you misunderstood Marx's point about the middle class. His was not a personal hatred against individuals who happened to be from the middle class, it was directed at an abstract structure. He attributed certain qualities to the "small Bourgeoisie", not as a character flaw, but as a manifestation of their economical situation. This is very clear if you have read other writings of Marx besides the Manifesto, which is most well known but it is more rhetorical than analysis.

90. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184062 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 2:03 pm

MaxD

I think Marxist doctrine has produced evil men because it believes history to be something than can and will end when the new system comes into fruition. That is it has a definate prophesy and worse than that it is an end that can be facilitated by humans. In any event, don't read me too closely as one of his defenders! :)

I think Marx suffered from the same problem of all Utopians. The aspiration to absolute goodness and justice always leads to evil because 'absolute" is a totalitarian concept, even in goodness. This is ironic because according to Marxist dialectics, everything would turn into its opposite.

Marx got the idea of an iron clad law of history as well as dialectics from Hegal. Hegal believed that history progressed towards an Utopian destiny according to the law of dialectics. But in Hegal's idea that Utopian end would be a world wide Christian theocracy. Marx turned Hegal upside down but still retained his spirit, so to speak.

91. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184050 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 1:41 pm

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.

EDIT I think Wiki articles on technical and scientific matters are pretty decent. On more general subjects especially those that may involve controversial topics, one has to be more careful. In general it gives a good starting point, but more follow up and cross checking with sources may be required. I think that is how most intelligent people would use any internet source anyway. I am actually rather surprised that people would hold anything against the intellectual standard of the Wiki on an internet forum. In such forums people routinely link to all kind of non peer reviewed online sources on a variety of topics and no one seems to be bothered by the practice. The Wiki may not be scholarly enough to be cited in an academic paper, but probably better sourced and referenced than most links that people post on internet forums.

92. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183937 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 8:18 am

I can see some valid arguments for preventing corporations from making political donations. However, applying the same logic, trade unions shouldn't make them either.

Of course, modern trade unions like Auto worker unions ARE corporations in the practical sense.

93. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183935 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 8:07 am

Al

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

Then why do we continue to dump shits in the air and the water? Does it mean air and water have no value?

The key in your rebuttal is "perceived", the perception is apparently based on whether you can affix a price tag on things and comodify it by market thinking. When there is an abundance of supply of air, the price would be infinitesimal but it dosesn't change its value, you still can not survive without it.

Your reasoning is therefore circular.

94. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183930 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 7:59 am

Phil rimmer,

What if someone is clever enough to create more atmosphere, more means of living? That would be in everyone's interests to encourage, surely?

Interesting example, except that the market only recognizes price, not value. Air and water are essential but they have no price, until they become commodities. Clean air and water will only become a commodity if some capitalist is allowed to own them and sell them for a profit or if we have fuck them up so much that they become rare. We fuck them up because capitalism is blind to value which doesn't have a price tag attached.

BTW, "creating more" increases supply, and this is always a bad idea in capitalist logic. You want to supply at a level that maximizes profits, not to do most good.

The only way a post-industrial society such as ours in the UK can prosper, is through problem-solving and other forms of creativity. (Or being a plumber, of course. £250/day! Not bad.) Individuals must think of themselves as being able to add value in some way, and given the huge changes in the nature of work

You are confusing value and price. You probably don't get pay a lot if you work with inner city children or look after seniors. Volunteers actually provide very valuable services as oppose to say, chemists working for tobacco companies to make cigarettes more addictive, scientists who make WMD or lawyers do corporate mergers. I know it is not always easy to weigh contributions based on "value", but clearly it is not satisfactory to equate value with the price one gets pay for. Usually, you get reward more handsomely if you cater to wealth and those who own it, which is not the same as contributing to "society" in some intuitive sense.

The trade unions were essential then. They have lost their way rather now. I do wish that adult education and training were at the heart of their concerns.

Actually, the trade union is anything but "socialist". It starts with the premise that labour is a commodity and union is a way to get the best price for their goods by controlling supply and the channels of distribution. This is exactly like what big corporations do. Unions are a very capitalist idea.

95. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183916 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 7:31 am

Quetzalcoatl

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

I am sure he doesn't mean his underware or his computer. He means something like land, resources and infrastructures for commerce and production. The concentrate ownership and right to deploy and allocate these assets gives one the power to control the economical lives of many.

An oligarchy is practically a dictatorship, because the most important decisions in politics,--economical ones,--are made essentially by a few with no accountability except to their wealthy buddies and share holders, Economical power also translates to political power in a very real sense. Politicians have to make sure that capital owners are happy with their policies or risk economical retaliations. Do you think a few should be allowed to hold a country hostage like that in a nominal democracy? In the U.S there is also another dimension, just think of where politician have to get their fundings from in order to run for office.
.
I think a reverse question can be asked of you, do you think there is anything which should not become private property?

96. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183914 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 7:18 am

Al,

I prefer liberty, freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail, the freedom to live how I choose.

Do you have a lot of choices in a capitalist paradise if you don't have money? The U.S. has many state of art of medical technology, for example, but in the inner cities the infant mortality rate rivals the third world.

Do you have a real choice if you have to either starve or work in some sweatshop for $1 a day?

It is the squalor, the slums, the homeless, the virtually enslaved and the large numbers who cannot "choose" because all wealth is concentrate in the hand of a few that motivate socialism in the first place.

We don't live in a pure capitalist system. In the West we have had centuries to work out the conflict between the divine right of capital and human rights, and many of the features of what we regard as a humane, civilized society are the results of socialistic reform and protests rather than the working of capitalism, as a casual study of history would reveal. To see raw capitalism at work look at 16th century England or China today, The discipline of capitalism has to be enforced by army and violence, it is not a "natural" thing like gravity.

97. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183876 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 4:40 am

Actually, I agree with those who say that clearmind smells like a big fake. Look at how his writing suddenly improves and then just when his sentences become coherent they would dissolve into incongruent fragments again, it looks like a deliberate attempt to speak wooter.There is also an interesting stylistic twist in the form of dialogues.

I am thinking maybe whoever that is behind the screen name is more perverted than stupid. I suggest he should get a life regardless.

98. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183872 by Bonzai on May 23, 2008 at 4:27 am

Wooter suddenly sounds like Nietzsche in thus spoke Zarathustra, except with a lot of spelling and grammatical mistakes and mangled sentences. No intelligent man no logical no can be profit no no wooter.

Child 1. look at that man Wooter, are his pants on fire? It is dark but his arse glows like a thousand stars.
child 2: I see, man no logic torches his balls.
child 1: you wrong. Wooter no logic man has no balls.

99. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183536 by Bonzai on May 22, 2008 at 8:27 am

Mike,

Well whether it is the same house or they can be meaningfully said to be in the same neighbourhoood would depend on how you measure distance in the phase space, It is probably true that set of characteristics being measured are not good enough for that purpose, but maybe they are. The article doesn't say,

I don't know if the purpose is to try to reconstruct evolutionary history. If that is the purpose it wouldn't be sufficient to simply knowing that you have reach a particular state, even if you can narrow it down. There are many possible paths to reach it and they cannot be ruled out apriori.

When you bring in relationship with other populations then of course there is no "reversal", for that means restoring the "environment" of the species to an earlier state as well. This is never implied.

I can be wrong, I think while it is not meaningful to talk about the direction of evolution, it does make sense to talk about the proximity of species, based on some measure. If that is true that all they are saying is that the fish evolved away from a given state and then come close to it again. Think of the original state as a point. Draw a big circle and a small circle centered at the point. At time = t, species is in a state specified by a point outside the big circle (far from the center) and then at time s, s > t, organism is found at another state, which is inside the smaller circle (closer to the circle). That is all I mean.

100. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183523 by Bonzai on May 22, 2008 at 8:00 am

Mike,

If the house looks exactly like yours and you can open its door with your key it is probably your house.

You are absolutely right that the "retracing" doesn't have to, and likely won't go through the same path, so I should have said instead "revisit some earlier states in its evolutionary history,--or at least states that are sufficiently close to those"

In that sense it is a "reversal". To my knowledge there is no principle in biology that says that you cannot talk about a state without specifying how you get there. You can reach the same state (or the same cluster of states in some "phase space") through different paths How you get there would depend, among other things, where you were. So it is still your house even though you might have taken a different path home.]

EDIT The main point is that in context, I don't find anything in the phrase "reverse evolution" that may suggest inappropriately that there is an intrinsic direction to evolution.