1301. Islam in Europe

Comment #114724 by MaxD on January 22, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Al-rawandi,
I also don't want to have painted you into a position you don't hold. So while you are saying no segregation of sexes based on religious grounds and I'd agree, I just think there may be settings, academic classes say, where we may consider seperating them for a few periods especially when they hit adolescence. I just think the educuational ends may be better met by such policies. It has however become impolite and politically incorrect to say so.

1302. Islam in Europe

Comment #114721 by MaxD on January 22, 2008 at 4:00 pm

i think an excellent case can be made for seperating males and females (not completely) especially in the high school grades as an academically sound strategy.
The evidence isn't completely in and as
"educational science" standards are woefully shitty we can continue to argue about it, but i think the continued failing of males in schools requires a serious look at co-education adolescent ed.
If you want to sing the word segregation you are unintentially- i hope- laying a PC land mine that will necessarily tinge the debate. It will create villains and good guys and get us off track.
Having spent the past few years in education I think we really need to review our current practices. This should begin with dismantling every Ph.D and Master's program in Education. And then we need to serious look at how best to serve the students. I have to be clear I think the main problem really hits at the highschool level.
Moreover I think much of it stems from the fact that educators and particularly the people who structure education have given absolutely no thought to our evolutionary history, and the psychology said history has crafted.
So simply bandying the term segregation may do more harm than good in any sober discussion of how we educate young people.

1303. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114676 by MaxD on January 22, 2008 at 2:37 pm

They also avoided hitting the intellectual center of Kyoto. Where they thought the message of the bombs would be better understood.

1304. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114674 by MaxD on January 22, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I think TonyA has essayed the best case for what I've been trying to say.
And I notice that al-rawandi has ignored tha analogous mention of the bombing of dresden. This bombing was just as controversial.

I also would like to echo the whole 20-20 hindsight bit.

1305. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114619 by MaxD on January 22, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I think you are correct though to suggest that the incident should have been thoroughly reviewed and investigated. And anyone found guilty of war crimes really should be punished.

1306. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114613 by MaxD on January 22, 2008 at 1:25 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if you are right that sending a message to the soviets was part of the rationale.
However, they could have sent that message in just the same way you say we could have detered the Japanese. Drop a bomb on some unihabited island, and watch the knees shake and our enemies prostrate themselves before us.
However I think you are writing off the worry that US officials had about the Japanese themselves. The people needed to see something that would shake their confidence in their dear leader. Up to that point they had been hearing about how it was the US forces that were getting their asses kicked. The bombs-terrible though they were- drove an important message home to what could have been irrational actors in the conflict. Hirohito is full of shit was that take home message. We wrecked Germany too. Not with atomic weaponry, but I don't see you saying that was done to impress the Russians. I think on the main they wanted to impress the rest of Japan to simmer down.
However I don't want to seem as if I condone the actions. The instant death of 80 to 100,000 people and many more post bombing is nothing to be happy about. I just think you give short shrift to the notion that it probanbly saved more lives than it cost.

1307. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114600 by MaxD on January 22, 2008 at 12:55 pm

al rawandi,
I think one of the major concerns was mass suicide of the Japanese populace. And to say that we kick their asses across the pacific does a tremendous disservice to the cost of that fight on both sides.
That was easily one of the most violent and bloody and costly fights in WWII.
It either case, the two bombs, vs invasion I imagine the losses would have been the same. Though with the added, and likely massive, US casualties. I don't like the use of the bombs, however I think we want to resort to facile discussion of their use either. I could be swayed either way. But I doubt it was just "look at what we can do, nanana boo boo." It wasn't us just showing off how big our dicks were, well at least not for the sake of showing them off.

1308. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114593 by MaxD on January 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Well I called my congressman Mike Pence and I sent him this letter, along with the form letter at that Secularism site. I wanted to be much rougher in my email but thought this, polite approach might earn a more thoughtful reading. That is most definately wishful thinking on my part. Mike Pence is a religious nut who gets offended by flag burning.

Dear Congressman Pence,
I recently sent you a form letter regarding House Resolution 888. However, I thought this may require, no demand a more personal touch.

House Resolution 888 is just bad. Its bad history, its bad policy and its use of tax payer time and money is justs awfully bad. This nation is not, nor has it ever been a Christian nation. The US constitution was largely reviled at the time for it complete lack of Christian religious sentiment. The most anyone can do is point to the vague, and certainly deist, ramblings in the Declaration of Independence. "Nature's God," and "Creator" are hardly invocations of Jesus, and of Abrahamic monothesisms. No reading of the Declaration of Independence can make it a Christian document. This house resolution is also in direct opposition of the First Amendment in that it violates the establishment clause. Undoubtly you will role your eyes at that, but I urge you to go read the amendment and see the reality to which you have so clearly blinded yourself. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." A resolution isn't a law but it is dangerously precedent setting. Moreover it creates an environment more conducive to religious intrusion into political life.

Were their Christians in the US at the time? Most certainly. Were they behaving badly toward one another prior to laws like the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom? Yes again. Were some of the signers of the Declaration Christian? This again seems in little doubt. However they did sign, and lend the weight of their reputations to a deeply irreligious document. The framers were almost certainly deist. And a case could be made that Franklin and Jefferson were outright atheists.

Furthermore, the war on the Barbary Coast has re-affirmed what Jefferson intended. In negotiatians with the Barbary pirates and slavers he said, through Madison I believe, the US was not, nor was it ever a Christian nation. He solidified the much needed secular character of the US. Not only does our constitution protect our freedom to express, independently our religious traditions, it protects us from -It was this point that several of the founders were in deep agreement on- religion. This resolution does much to privilage Christianity over other religious stances. As such it does a tremendous disservice to them all. Worse still, it does damage to one of the unique things that makes the US great. It damages the secular character of our government. This has kept our politics more unified, and our citizens less, not more, concerned with our religious differences.
Vote no on House Resolution 888 and any similar resolutions or laws that come through your office.

1309. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114275 by MaxD on January 21, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Well,
I've just sent my email. Tomorrow I will drop the hammer on Mike Pence.
what a bunch of fuckwits.

1310. Hook, line and rapture

Comment #113649 by MaxD on January 20, 2008 at 9:40 am

I actually think it is true that most Christians do want this world to end and in a way they do want to die. Certainly every one of the fundementalists look forward to the day when we heathen infidels get the Jeebus Axe. however. They don't probably want to be put in a box before that.
Most of them want to translated into the next life upon seeing Jeebus return. Because, well, that wouldn't take much faith now would it?

1311. King Me!

Comment #113645 by MaxD on January 20, 2008 at 9:25 am

Ippon! Hah. The hip-throw of reason? Tomoe nage of truth maybe? Tsurikomi ashi against obscurantism?
Sorry about the judo terminology here. Rawlinson inspired me.

1312. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112988 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 11:07 am

Another great ann coulter related item is Henry Rollins letter to her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iM7MR5_v47w
Hillarious!

1313. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #112980 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 11:00 am

It is funny Diacanu.
Though, i'm now thinking about moving to Cali now...I won't stare at her adam's apple....
no, no I didn't say that.

1314. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112977 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 10:56 am

Thanks. I feel the change in the political wind already!

1315. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112974 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 10:53 am

The I fucked ann coulter blog was hilarious.

1316. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112969 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 10:47 am

The Ann Coulter question is an interesting one. I am at an utter loss about her. I think she must be the most strange satirist alive, if that interpretation is correct. An idiot if she is a real neo-con. The third possiblity is that she is just utterly crack pot crazy. I suppose she could be some strange combination of all three.
Huffingtonpost had a strange story about her and an outing at a popular gay restaraunt. She was shy and polite and it struck everyone in attendence as bizarre. What is Ann champion neo con doing here?
I hope she is a stealth liberal, because it would be sad if someone was that crazy or that committed to neo-con ideas.

1317. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112961 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 10:41 am

al-rawandi,
Got to think of my political future. Political future, man! Think! Its bad enough I am an un-remorseful (or is it un apologetic?) atheist. When word gets out that I slammed small dogs....I'm screwed.
Though I suppose you're right. Now I'll be branded as a flip-flopper.
Damnit.

1318. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112952 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 10:26 am

To steveroot and anyone else my crass belittling may have offended.
I would like to take the opportunity to apologize for what was a very poor attempt at humor made at the expense of that, most noble of creatures, the Chihuahua. That noble beast of burden did nothing to deserve my vitriole.
In short my fellow athiests, and tiny dog afficianados, I apologize.

Oh and thanks for the advice on how to delete an extra post.

1319. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112926 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 9:35 am

Sorry about the double post guys. Not sure how that happened.

al-rawadi- you're right. Whoops but nor really. Here was my rationale. I wanted to say something like, you and your christian bretheren. But I really just thought it was an unimportant distinction. After all, Evolutionary theory is his Nazi bogeyman, or his marxist bogeyman when it isn't being social darwinist. So in the end I just thought, well there may be a character limit on this thing so I will just lump him in with christians. It saves space.

1320. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112920 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 9:27 am

I think the case could be made though that we have seen the creation of at least, reproductively isolated species hundreds of times through our own manipulations of animals and plants.
Whatever the fuck a chiuchua is, it is most certainly not a wolf however close the genetics. Could they interbreed possibly, but without human intervention, I would guess not. One of them becomes the other's lunch and I will leave it to your good offices to decide which would be which. Some one surely saw this process occur but at every stage it probably didn't seem like that much of a leap from the ancestral wolf-like form to the disgusting form that so captivates Paris Hilton. This example could be used with any of our extreme breeds. Though the larger the breed the less reproductively isolated as the structural and behavioral barriers to reproduction would be fewer.
I said something like this to a creationist once who said this species objection.
"Yeah well, they're still dogs!" She yelled at me. Actually yelled.
It was at that point I decided the conversation was over.

1321. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112908 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 9:13 am

Here is the letter I just sent Ben Stein or at least his employees at Expelled.
Ben.
You keep saying that evolution is mixed to some ideology, sometimes Marxism, sometimes Nazism. More than that you bring up Social Darwinism. To be be blunt, the veracity of the theory would be hard to discredit because of these alleged associations. As you Christians never tire of saying, don't judge us by our pogroms against jews, our support of Nazis and our inquisitions.
Taking the last point first though, Darwin himself disavowed what more rightly should have been called Social Spencerism. Darwin wanted nothing to do with it. Communist Russia rejected the modern synthesis in favor of Lysenko's lies.
And Nazism was a mixed bag of ideologies that drew from pagan, christian and scientific wellsprings.
However your characterization that evolution is attached to some horrid ideology, or is itself some ideology is just plain stupid. Go to any embattled biology department and you will find it, along with its scientific neighbors(in physics and chemistry) often the only ones concerned with reality. Biologists get in trouble from leftists when they say something that seems in line with traditional ideas. We then come underfire when our research shows some kind of correspondance with left leaning ideas.
We are just a bunch folk doing our research, further elucidating one of the most robust and well tested theories in all of science.
You sir are just a moron trying to justify adherence to backwards desert fantasy.

1322. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112896 by MaxD on January 18, 2008 at 8:54 am

I of course will be skipping Stein's moronic masterpiece because it is like all the other creationist/ID bullshit.
His rant about random chance being the corner stone of evolutionary theory says everything that needs to be said. It is the same tired nonsense that they always say. Though I will say one more thing. That other nonsense about not seeing a new species form, cited above could be answered with the following quip.
"Yeah Ben, but no one, Nobel prizing winning Richard Feynman notes, has ever seen the inside of a brick either."


Sadly the general public will fail to notice this captivating scientific argument isn't being discussed in the scientific journals. Its press release science which as we all know is the worst, and most telling failure of any research, program or hypotheses.

1323. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #111876 by MaxD on January 15, 2008 at 11:30 pm

Sadly you didn't really address what I said. Just pulled to quotes that seemed easy to refute.

"it isn't" isn't an argument.
And Harris said the same thing about dangers. You just chose to be a luddite and a reactionary about the whole concept.

The only sensible thing you've said on this post was to admit that Brin was right about George Lucas.

1324. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #111873 by MaxD on January 15, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Some of you guys have slammed the beauty industry as if it sets the standards and isn't just responding to a positive-feedback loop. Why is there a paucity of fat models gracing our fashion mags, billboards and tv ads? Because they aren't healthy and don't appeal to human conceptions of beauty. These standards have clear a clear evolutionary stamp. You don't see skinny weakling looking guys on these bill boards either. Same damn reasons.

Diacanu acts like such a luddite on this topic. Clearly there are potential dangers to manipulating ourselves. But we've always manipulated ourselves and our environment. We have been genetically modifying our crops and our most constant pals, dogs, horses cows and chicken. I haven't even addressed the crops we've changed, and with which we've changed the surface of the planet. Certainly this hasn't been all good, but it certainly hasn't been all bad.

Harris' doesn't advocate something radically progressive in this regard. He does advise caution. And as everyone else has said, its happening now any way. My dad has machinery in his chest that commumicates and regulates his heart and is in constant commnication with a monitor in his room. Their are people with artificial this or that. Certainly the integration of the mechanical/computerized equipment will continue to advance. In this respect it seems that "improvement" is inevitable.

1325. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111866 by MaxD on January 15, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Diacanu made some point about money chasers and that manages to miss the point about having money entirely. He misses Phil Rimmer's point to be precise. "I don't want to earn loads of money...I need life and my work to be INTERESTING." (Phil may not know he made either.)

I like to have more money than not because it allows me to engage in the pursuits that make me most happy. That is the best definition of wealth I think there is. Having enough to do what makes you happy.

I like to travel. I like working out. I like doing Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and Judo (Gis and gym fees ouch!). I like seeing movies (clearly you do too as you are often refer to or quote the geekiest and most expensive of these). I like being able to replace my binolculars and spotting scopes and field guides when the field has shown its teeth. And that is just for me! I have a daughter whom I like to provide for as well.
Money is important because it allows me to do the things that fulfill my life.
Do I need millions to accomplish this? Nah. But man I wish I had them. That way I could drop the bullshit job, and just study birds and do the things I dig infinitely more. Man if I suddenly had millions I can't say, other than my philanthropy, I'd be a paragon of productivity. But on the plus side my daughter and I would be killer birders with mad Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and Judo skills.
However the utopia I keep hearing about, the one with all this re-distribution of wealth wouldn't necessarily allow me to go enjoy the things that bring me fulfillment.

1326. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111859 by MaxD on January 15, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Diacanu said: Paris Hilton popped into my head as the ultimate example of an unworthy heir, and then I saw Batboy, and the images combined in my head, and it occured to me her being a Batwoman and having to beat up crooks and save falling babies would be the only thing to justify her existance.

Wasn't Batwoman Gordon's daughter?
or was that batgirl.....?
In any event you may want to condsider the Batman earning his keep thing a bit more carefully. Frank Miller's treatment in The Dark Knight Returns may make you think twice.

1327. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111856 by MaxD on January 15, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Scooter said: "Come on guys. Are we not above this type of comment yet? Can we not focus on the logic, reason and intelligence? Or does the statement itself prove my point"
Clearly not.

Dicannu said: Hmm, funny, I found a dose of unemployment and the resultant frugality starved me off the drug effect of shopaholism, and made me see it for what it is.

Now I find the things that make me happiest don't cost a thing."

This is the happy case of the anecdote not proving a thing.
Dicannu why did you bring up Ayn Rand. Shermer certainly didn't endorse her. He slammed the Randians in "Why people believe strange things."

1328. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #111850 by MaxD on January 15, 2008 at 9:37 pm

This is easily the weirdest conversation I've yet seen in this forum.
First there is the tendency to think that Shermer was advocating some form of Social Darwinism which he was not. Pinker has discussed this in the Blank Slate and it seems as if Shermer has elaborated on the theme. Much of economic theory-at least to my understanding-has preceded on the idea that people are more or less rationale consumers. Evolutionary analysis of human behavior in this regard may show that humans are decidedly ill equipped to thrive in the modern economy without some specific training.

The other thing that really shocks is all the moralizing and absolutism that goes on in this discussion. Dicannu's faux wisdom on wealth is really priceless. I'm glad you can eshue money and find all the gadgets and nick nacks of the modern world so pathetic.

Where are your studies that show this flattening of the happiness money curve? I'd have to say I'm clearly skeptical of this position. IF you are a smart investor all that extra wealth is a big cushion. It is security. Any time I see Bill Gates he always looks happy. I wonder if his curve has flattened out?

Yacht possibilities...The differnece between a 54 foot yacht and 36 foot yacht maybe stability on rough seas, or means longer time out on the water. My point is that it isn't clear that some limit of sanity has been reached when someone upgrades to something that seems extravagent to our eyes, and no desire to score cheap conversation points will make it so. Sometimes there will be no rhyme or reason other than to make an ostentatious display of wealth. Other times it will make a peculiar amount of sense.

1329. Monkey, Business

Comment #111737 by MaxD on January 15, 2008 at 3:58 pm

al-rawandi said this smug nonsense-
"I am generally disgusted by people who inherit money. I don't know one wealthy person who inherited there money that I really like. All douchebags. (Read: George Bush)."

I hope to leave my children and grandchildren with a little something. Maybe if I am lucky alot of something. I want to live comfortably. I don't mind being taxed. I don't mind capital gains taxes. I give money to charitable causes and foundations. I'm not convinced that there is any thing wrong with that.

I think of the depressing block housing in russia, and the food rations and mind numbing pointlessness of that existance. So this rosy picture that keeps being painted of some the hard core socialisms doesnt' work. You guys need to read your 1984 a bit closer.

In any event I'm very leery of people who say the kind thing above. Not only is it utterly without depth, it neglects the fact that there are disgusting people on both sides of the tracks. On both sides of the tracks you can find indignant senses of entitlement, selfishness and greed.

1330. Monkey, Business

Comment #111731 by MaxD on January 15, 2008 at 3:28 pm

However RtamTree the Japanese did bomb the west coast, albeit ineffectually through bombs carried by balloon. They did attack the US military, who up to that point had been uninvolved in the war despite FDR's agitation for US involvement.

It is a tired bit of business this the US is constantly agressive, defense/military bad etc. Not only is not true, its always poorly argued. You act as if there were no legitimate US military actions. Japan did attack the US.
Everyone accepts the point that we often use the military to quickly, and don't utilize diplomacy as thoroughly as we could.
However it is also just as true that defending oneself doesn't mean one has to wait for some attack to be justified. Sometimes you meet a committed enemy before they jack you up.

Also your comment regarding Michael Moore's rather disappointing Bowling For Columbine was strangely hard on Heston. Its good sport to jump an old man in the throws of alzimhers, or dementia and make him look utterly stupid. I'm not saying that Heston was smart even at the height of wits. However he was quite incapable of mounting any case for gun ownership, or to catch Moore in some of his slippery obfuscations.
(I dislike both Michael Moore and the NRA as it happens. I do however support gun ownership.)

1331. Monkey, Business

Comment #111725 by MaxD on January 15, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Sometimes I get the sense that this movement of ours has just as many knee-jerk reactionaries incapable of thought as our right leaning moronic god bothering opposition.
People are writing off the conclusions of a book they haven't even read despite the fact that much of its conclusions (based on this scant article) aren't obviously foolish, or implausible. It would be shocking indeed if primate brains evolved for small family, tribal units were well equipped to deal with modern econimic decisions.
Never mind all that though. Lets just read conclusions into the book that may not be there.
Some of the reactions to this article are deeply disappointing.

1332. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76895 by MaxD on October 7, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Steve99 posted this waaaay up at the top of this comments section.
"Women can be just as prone to violence, the fact that the speaker hasn't researched it doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring and doesn't negate the potential or the reality.

Indeed. Although it was an excellent talk, there seemed to me to be a considerable confusion between evolution and culture. There was, I believe, an incorrect emphasis on a supposed male tendency to violence coming from evolution."

I don't know if this has been addressed. But I would like to take a swipe at it.
The question wasn't whether women could become, under certain , rather particular circumstances, killers or suicide bombers. Clearly they can. The speaker noted the unique circumstances inwhich this happens. But simply because women can become violent, dangersous types, it says nothing whatsoever about thier statistical tendencies. Thus to say "women can be just as prone to violence as men" seems patently absurd. There is no statistic that supports that claim.

Violent crime is predominantly a male phenemenon. That is an heirloom of our evolutionary history seems in little doubt. Our species' sexual dimorphism does more than hint at a past in which men fought with men. Indeed this is the story of sexual dimorphism, the larger sex wins mating privilages by combat. It would be a unique thing indeed if human sexual dimorphism was somehow an exception.

That every culture exhibits this trait, violence being committed by males far more often than females is also a strong support in favor of an evolutioniary origin of the trait. That males tend to engage in a form (of violence (male coalitional) that is also favored in our closest cousins, the chimps, doesn't seem easy to ignore.

Another line of evidence that I think favors an evolutionary tendency toward violence in males is the demographics of violent or combative sports. I am not saying that women don't engage in them, but most women do not. And I've yet to see a father or mother deny a kid an opportunity to study Judo, or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu simply based on the number of X chromosomes they have. In fact most parents want their kids to learn such arts, but the girls tend to not stay in the styles that involve intense matches, where things like cauliflower ear accrue. Where are the female wide recievers? Why are women boxers so very, very few when compared to male boxers?

I think that is a small sampling of the evidence that supports at least some element of an innate tendecy toward violence in males.