151. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176541 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I thought this is about Richard Morgan's latest conversion. I was wrong.

152. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176528 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm

PBUM

I said "What Eminen would call." I know he has been accused of homophobia before (I'm not so sure about that, though he is in a pretty homophobic part of the music industry). Its clear that he did not mean that line literally...

I was only joking. :)

As a gay person you should be ashamed! :) The best thing about being a gay man much surely be the ease of finding some, surely?

What the hell are you talking about? I do have very high standard. :)

153. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176443 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 10:50 am

Al

There are moderate Muslims, but when the first bill for shariah gets introduced, who will the moderates stand with. So far the moderates only whine about Islamophobia and racism, and don't even acknowledge the Muslim source for Occidentphobia, bigotry, sexism, death, and expansionism. So the moderates are no help, they are a cover which the fundamentalists can use to say "Ya I am one of those Muslims who goes to soccer games and votes and stuff, so nothing to see here."

I understand your general sentiment. I think though, it is not as simple as you make it out to be. The problem is not the number of nominal Muslims in your country, but how integrated they are. This is not a purely demographic issue.

The unintegrated Muslims, as you say, when push come to shove, would likely close rank with their more strident co-religionists.

On the other hand, at least in my province of Ontario, it was the moderate Muslims who were most instrumental in stopping Sharia dead on its track, A number of Muslims, especially women, mounted a truly impressive and highly visible campaign against allowing Sharia in family arbitrations while our politicians were about give it the green light. The secular "progressives" were mostly in favour of Sharia in the name of "multiculturalism".

I think a few lessons can be drawn.

1) The moderates don't always enable the fundamentalists, in this case this assertion is refuted very dramatically

2) The secular, "multi-cultural" elite,--who are mostly middle class and white,--are often most effective in undermining the genuine liberal causes they claim to uphold. They are worse than the "moderates" by being enablers of Islamic fundamentalism

3) Policies that encourage segregationist tendencies in Muslims have to be stopped and drastically reversed in countries like the U.K.

Muslims per se are not the problem, but when you have a large number of unintegrated Muslims in your country, you are asking for troubles. To encourage integration, you must stop the special treatments , accommodations and state funded faith schools, but hitting people with a stick is not good enough, you must also offer genuine rewards for integration.

The U.K practices a kind of perverted "multi-culturalism" which is basically an adaptation of colonial techniques to manage its own minority populations. Minorities are encouraged to segregate themselves in their own ghettos so that the mainstream doesn't have to suffer the inconvenience of really opening up to new comers. So, "new" racism with a "muticultral" appearance dovetails nicely with good old boy racism.

154. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176436 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 10:21 am

"Jesus saves" sounds like a slogan of some super cheap store that sells crappy products made in sweatshops in the third world.

155. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176397 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 8:33 am

pbum

I belive what you actually got was what Emimen calls "some intense, serious ass fucking"

Excuse me?! Is there anything wrong with making passionate love? Me think Mr. Slim Shady has some issues to deal with.:)

As a gay person I would like some intense,serious ass fucking but unfortunately haven't gotten any action lately because I spend too much time on Rd.net ... :(

156. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #176382 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 8:11 am

rain

It simply means that his 'm' key is where his 'b' key should be.
Either that or he's a moron.

Yep, he's a boron.

157. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176336 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 7:32 am

Has anyone seen the dreadful bus adverts in central London lately... with that kid grinning whilst staring at a marquee stating "Islam Is Peace"

Sorry, what is a "marquee"?

158. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175794 by Bonzai on May 6, 2008 at 3:38 am

Dannyjgb

Is the murder of thousands by pressing a button more defensible than one beheading?

No. But no one defends these actions as a matter of principle. Indeed they happen because the West fails to uphold the very principles it professes to represent.

Western governments can be rightly accused of hypocrisy. However, the beheadings, amputations and stoning, the misogyny, intorence and executions of apostates are defended as a matter of doctrine, these are Islamic ideals in action,--at least according to many mainstream Islamic "scholars".

So, by pointing out our own wrong doing for failing to uphold our own values does not in any way make Islam less of a god damned aweful ideology than it is.

So, perhaps we should also think about putting our own house in order while we address the issue of Islam?

Creeping Islamism is gaining ground in Europe and the U.K, it is "our own house".

EDIT It is also naive to think that all Muslim radicalism is always a reaction to Western foreign policies. When home grown, second generation Muslims got radicalized and join the jihadists it has little to do with foreign policies. When young Muslim radicals tried to bomb a bar because they thought "the women there are all sluts", as they did in the U.K a few years ago, it has got nothing to do with foreign policies.

159. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175783 by Bonzai on May 6, 2008 at 3:05 am

With Al-Shifa I think Chomsky jumped the gun.

From what I gathered no one, except for Ramsey Clark, backed his grim prediction that tens of thousands would die as a result of drug shortage because of the destruction of the factory, not one single NGO and human right group that works on the ground would lend credence to that prediction. It appears that he got his numbers from some rather obscure source and he took the words of the Sudanese government on face value. This government is made up of the same thugs who deny it has anything to do with the slaughters in Dalfur, it is hardly a very trust worthy source of information.

The bombing of Al Shifa was certainly a violation of international law and the U.S. should definitely pay for the damage (which hasn't) It is also true that the U.S. itself would never tolerate even much lesser provocations from a foreign power. However, it was not a major humanitarian disaster that Chomsky made it out to be,--as far as I know.

160. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175770 by Bonzai on May 6, 2008 at 2:21 am

epeeist

pretentiousness masquerading as intellectualism

You mean citing obscure philosophers and using multi-syllable big words to make a simple point? ;) I don't find that problem with riverrun even though his profuse citations are a bit tedious.

161. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175621 by Bonzai on May 5, 2008 at 5:57 pm

I think the key word here is "state", not "secular".

Keith strangely left out the word "state" altogether and changed it to "secularism worship", god only knows what that is.

162. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175606 by Bonzai on May 5, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Vineletric

BBC: More than 500 British Muslim religious leaders and scholars have issued a fatwa in response to the London bombs.

Well, the Saudis outlaw AlQueda, there were Wahabi and Salafist 'scholars' who condemned the bombing and 9/11, but it is hardly a proof that Wahabism and Salafism are not dangerous, intolerant and toxic ideologies.

I always think it is a mistake to focus entirely on terrorism. Sure, it is attention grabbing but it is mostly confined to the fringe,

By exaggerating and fixating on terrorism one gives the wrong impression that Islam is otherwise ok,

In the U.K., it seems that a Muslim can be considered a "moderate" or even deemed fit to sit on committees to advise government officials as long as he draws the line at outright terrorism. Otherwise he may have really grotesque views about non believers, Jews, women and homosexuals, he may think that stoning is acceptable(Tariq Ramadan?), he may think apostates should be put to death, he may hate secular democracy and advocate for eventual Islamic take over and imposition of Sharia,--through peaceful means, of course.. Anything can be forgotten and forgiven as long as he says no to terrorism. Thus, Ken Livingstone praised Qaradawi as a great moderate.

The bar seems to be set pathetically low for Islam moderation.

163. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #175133 by Bonzai on May 4, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Rtambree

The west may be more sane than Islam, but it spreads around a lot more military clout (trillions in 'defense' spending), and the consequences are that the west causes more violence & suffering of innocent lives over the last 60 years (whether from negligence, incompetence or whatever) than the intentional actions of Islam's suicide bombers.

While that is true, I think the reason many people are having difficulties with such a formulation is that they do make an instinctive distinction between ideal and practice, but often only vaguely aware of it.

When the West commits atrocities, it is a deviation of what it nominally believes. It is not because of Western professed ideal of humanism, enlightenment and democracy that the violence and sufferings occur, but a failure to uphold them. On the other hand, when Islam kills and oppresses, it is actually the faithful execution of its ideals.

The West is guilty of hypocrisy because it doesn't live up to its own ideals, while the Islamic ideal is itself evil.

I don't think you intend to create a moral equivalence between Islamic and Western values and certainly not Chomsky, his criticisms of Western policies are always rooted in his enlightenment convictions But some self described, "leftists" and "multiculturalists" actually think this way. I have debated quite a number of them on Zmag's old forum. People who don't have a very nuanced understanding of "the left" would easily take your statement in the wrong way and see it as an apologetic for Islam.

I actually don't think terrorism and suicide bombings are the biggest problems of Islam, these are relatively rare incidents and confined to the fringe, what is infinitely worse is a fundamentally illiberal, barbaric ideology which is mainstream Islam. It keeps a large number of Muslims in the dark age. The biggest victims of Islam have always been Muslims themselves.

164. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #175026 by Bonzai on May 4, 2008 at 7:42 am

TCT

Essentially belief in God is emotional and therefore genetically determined.

Huh? I never said belief in God is "genetic". Being emotionally based and being genetic are not the same.

165. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175025 by Bonzai on May 4, 2008 at 7:36 am

Based on what I read here, I don't think Vinelectric is apologizing for Islam, he is simply asking people to inform themselves and form an opinion based on knowledge instead of kneel jerk, emotional responses, I cannot see how that is an unreasonable position for people who apparently advocate for reason and evidence.

While I am very aware of the danger of conservative Islam taking a foothold in the West, I think Fansusi's BNP like rhetorics is not helpful. To destroy Islam? How does he propose to achieve that? Round up and intern every Muslim? That is not only unrealistic, it is morally reprehensible.

166. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175024 by Bonzai on May 4, 2008 at 7:29 am

While we are on the topic, what do you think of Westerners who voluntarily act as a vehicle to the infiltration of radical Islam?

Australian university soliciting funds from Saudi Arabia for its Islamic study program. Based on these reports it doesn't seem to be an above board, no string attached donation.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2231782.htm

167. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174878 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 5:37 pm

But the dials are something rather than nothing, no?

EDIT Actually, from what I understand, according to the fine tuning argument, it is not that nothing would exist if the "dials" were set incorrectly, but that it would be very different universe which either immediately collapse upon itself, or no stable, complex structure would arise, etc. So it presumes "something", at least in the beginning.

In any case, this is a recent argument. The trend is that the theists try to insert God in any gap they can find in our knowledge. When our knowledge expands, God is being exorcised to the far end of the universe and the beginning of time, so it sounds much grander than the tribal God of Israel, yet at the same time, a lot more restricted, remote and impotent in actually intervening. This is a paradox the theists don't seem to realize.

168. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174871 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm

TCT

The argument from order, essentially why there is something rather than nothing,

I don't think they are the same, MPhil may have something to say about it, so have your dictionary handy.:)

I don't know why you need God, or how does God help in explaining why there is something instead of nothing. One can ask why there is a God instead of no God.

I think it was probably not until the medieval time or much later that people ask this question and think that God is the answer. It sounds like a question that would only arise if you accept certain theological or philosophical premises. The apparent reasonableness of the answer "God" is due to cultural conditioning rather than the logic of the arguments. Many pre-Christian civilizations believed that Gods were secondary creations from some primordial order (e.g the Greeks). For those mystics, the existence of some primordial order didn't need explanation, but the existence of gods did.

169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174856 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 4:54 pm

That is, it is not so much 'order and harmony' as the First Cause argument that they go with.

I think the first cause argument is probably the last refuge after all 'other cause arguments' have been shot down. In itself it is not an argument for a God with any nice properties. If there is no harmony in the stars,--assuming we still exist to contemplate about God,-- the first cause God may be either insane or an absentee God somewhat like a deadbeat dad, not a very good reason to build a religion around it.

Paley's argument was that creatures were evidence of a designer, and Darwin responded. Perhaps in the ensuing controversy the 'creatures are evidence of design' argument got elevated to something it had not been before?

I think that is because Paley was born long after Newton, Laplace etc. He could no longer point to the stars and argued that was evidence for God.

170. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174842 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 4:20 pm

The point about Darwin (or better, evolution by natural selection) is is that he/it provides a way of explaining apparently designed creatures without needing to invoke a designer/god.

Maybe it is just me, I don't think the apparent design of creatures is any stronger an argument for God than the order and harmony exhibited by celestial bodies. Indeed the ancients saw God in the stars, not in the chicken or the pig. Newton, Laplace, etc had shown that you don't need God to explain the stars.That would be as severe, if not more of a blow to theism than Darwin.

Darwin aroused intense reactions from the religious not because he provided a mechanism for apparent design, but because evolution addresses *our* origin, that hits too close to home, and hence evokes strong emotion.

I think this site sometimes does demonstrate some bias in favour of biology over other sciences. :)

Moreover, the belief in God is ultimately emotional rather than logical. Even if Darwin didn't exist or evolution totally wrong, Hume critique to the theory of the ultimate creator is still valid (hence ID is not a science regardless of whether there are holes in evolution). Actually, the Chinese poet Qu Yuan asked Hume's question in a long poem around 300BC.

171. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174828 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I don't hold that against anyone from before Darwin, or perhaps even before the knowledge of DNA.

I was of course only jesting with regard to Euler. He was a great mathematician regardless of his religious belief. But it was true that he was deeply religious I don't really care that religious folks trotting out great scientists who are/were believers to argue their cases. Argument from authority is not a valid argument anyway.


But I do have a slight problem with the attitude expressed in the statement quoted.

Darwin certainly has delivered a heavy blow to religious beliefs, but that is only because many people think we have a special place in the universe.

But on a grander scale, there would probably be very good reasons for not believing in an intervening God since Laplace, or perhaps even Newton. There has never been any good scientific reason believing in the God of the bible anyway. I don't really think Darwin was so special as far as atheism is concerned. Also, Darwin's theory was not that firmly established in his lifetime. Thompson was indeed correct in showing that evolution was impossible based on 19th century science. EDIT So a Thompson or a Newton could indeed legitimately dismiss Darwin's theory based on 9th century science, hence I think the statement quoted above is somewhat overstated.

172. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174807 by Bonzai on May 3, 2008 at 3:11 pm

exp(2*i*pi)=1, welcome aboard. Another Euler fan

I should point out that Euler was a religious fanatic. :)

173. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174501 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm

There is a real socialism which is really great. Anyone of the various people who attempt to implement it (all end up being brutal tyrants, by accident I am sure) fail. It has no wages.

Which "socialist" country has no wage?

Even attempting to implement socialism leads to massive misery and death, leaving aside what would happen if it was implemented.

Why don't you answer my post #390?

When you are at it, why don't you tell us how do you define "socialism",

EDIT Would "socialized medicine" be a defining feature?

174. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174484 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 1:44 pm

My point is that socialism clings in some circles, for various reasons, which I will enumerate if I get the answer I think I will get.

Libertarian, "the market knows best" Capitalism such as what you espouse also has most adherents in some circles. So why don't you stick to the arguments instead of trying to play the armchair psychologist?

175. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174477 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 1:37 pm

D'Arcy you never answered, what do you do for a living? For capitalist wages that is...

That is a stupid question. If you ask a peasant in the Medieval time the same question, he would say he worked for his Lord. Does it follow that Feudalism is inevitable?

176. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174474 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 1:33 pm

As far as "failed ideology" goes, it is important to take into account historical context.

Did Manley fail in Jamaica because of socialism, or was it because of U.S. economical sabotage?

Did the Sadinista fail in Nicaragua because of bad ideology, or the terrorist war waged by the U.S? Now after becoming a "democracy" for about twenty years with U.S. blessing and becomes the second poorest country in the continent with one of the highest illiteracy rate.

Did Alandi fail in Chile because of bankrupted ideology or because of CIA coup?

Yes, we should look at evidence and data, but not selectively.

177. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174448 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Christopher

But doesn't her speculation that she'd probably be an atheist if she had been brought up in the Muslim world sort of argue against the viability or reforming Islam? I mean, by her own admission she wouldn't know what "true Islam" is if she hadn't had the privelege of being raised outside the Muslim world.

I don't know, you'd better ask her yourself. She has a website and apparently does answer emails,

Personally I think she is on a Quixotic errand. Worse, even some genuine moderates who agree with the premise that Islam must be reformed don't take her seriously because apparently she is not that knowledgeable about Islam (of course I can't judge, I am just telling you what I heard from some Muslims, and they are a pretty liberal bunch)

Then her very pro Israeli stance on the ME conflict turns off a lot of Muslims,--the audience whom she tries to reach, Even Tarek Fatah, a very outspoken shit disturbing liberal Muslim in Toronto,--himself under multiple death threats,-- wrote a scathing disclaimer denying having anything to do with Manji when her book came out. Fatah is the founder of the Canadian Muslim Congress, a very liberal Muslim outfit which supported same sex marriage and campaigned against Sharia.

Some Muslims accuse her of trying to be the "token Muslim" for the Western audience and they are really annoyed that Manji always begins her speech with "As a Muslim.. I believe..." as if she speaks for the faith and then goes on to give a whole bunch of personal opinions. They would be more happy if she simply becomes an atheist like Ayan.

178. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174415 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 11:51 am

Christopher

WTF? So what is she saying? That if she had actually been exposed to the religion she is supporting she would disown it?

Manji doesn't think any nominal Islamic country practices "true Islam". In her view their Islam is a mutation perverted by Arab tribal cultures. she meant she would have rebelled had she been brought up in the Muslim world because she loathes Islam as it is practiced in these places,

179. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #174405 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 11:38 am

I think Chomsky basically writes as an American. When he writes about other countries, his focus is almost exclusively on their interactions with the U.S.

So his take on the Islamic world would highlight Western meddling in the region rather than treating the Islamic world on its own term, like a historian would. There are some good and important insights with his approach provided you know what kind of questions to ask, but his works don't give you a good, general understanding of the Islamic world view and how it enables and animates political movements.

Chomsky can be a good and useful source if you know his limitations and have some idea about what kind of questions he addresses.But he is not a good guide to understand world history or even contemporary politics if you don't have a more rounded background from somewhere else. If you only read Chomsky you may come away with the impression that people and governments outside the U.S are just passive actors or props for American foreign policies.

My 2 cents.

180. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174372 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 10:28 am

Quetz


Maybe he has mistaken his shrink to be his wife. :)

181. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174275 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:50 am

Haha, Teratonis does have a sense of humour.

In one post he manages to somehow talk about both his favourite topics,--peak oil and wikipedia,-- even though they are completely unrelated to what he is supposed to be commenting on.

It must be like George Costanza having sex and eating a sandwich at the same time.

182. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174274 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:43 am

Mphil

I think the great philosophers were/are still far less susceptible to brainwashing than an ordinary joe

Perhaps, but I suspect that great philosophers are far more susceptible to self delusions than the ordinary Joe. Clever people are much better in creating their only reality and rationalizing about it.

This is especially a trap for philosophers because they tend to live in their heads and word arguments not anchored in reality can be twisted and perverted so easily.

183. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174271 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:33 am

Bonzai you make it sound as if beating off is a bad thing to do...it did sound so negative.

How is it negative? Just amaze that someone can beat off and type at the same time.

184. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174266 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:22 am

Styrer

that I suddenly realised that you might have been intending to be a bit mean to me.

Not really. I was sincerely congratulating you. I am a South Park fan after all.:)

185. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174265 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:17 am

Robo.

Thanks for sharing, I don't really care what kind of music are you beating off to, just that your avatar is driving me into a styrer mode.

186. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174261 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:10 am

like Voltaire, or Kant (whose theism was radically different from anything the church offered) or de la Rochefoucauld, acheive a high level of "mental immunity".

A fascinating psychological case study would be Auguste Comte, the arch positivist. He cracked when his wife died and the whole rational facade melted away. He built a cult around her and made his students worship her.

I don't believe the human mind is fundamentally rational.

187. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174220 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Thank you dear Styrer for the info.

I think we should make you our official site asshole and I mean it as a compliment and in an endearing kind of way. It is a talent to be able to swear and insult people like you do, next I hope you will be making your own DVD like Pat Condell. BTW, I do like Pat Condell. :)

188. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174201 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:06 pm

Don_Quix

Pardon my ignorance, who is that woman that Dawkins morphs into? Or are you just having fantasies about him? ;)

189. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174200 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 9:04 pm

Goldy,

What is Mrs. Goldy's take on Tibet and the Olympic?

190. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174188 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Goldy

I think that is one of the growing resentments Chinese have against the western media - we tend to focus on the bad, missing the good.

Well for some Chinese the issue is not whether the depiction is true, but rather it hurts their egos by airing their dirty laundry to the world. Yet unfortunately the government wouldn't do anything unless foreigners start making noises.

Remember last years some dogs in the U.S. died as a result of eating made in China pet food? After that the Chinese government made a great effort to clean up their acts and even inviting Americans to inspect their factories. But for China's Asian neighbours this is hardly anything new, they have known for years that you gotta be careful with Chinese import because there is so much counterfeit and fake. But the Chinese wouldn't care if it is just the neighbours complaining. When Americans complain, they apologize and take actions.


The Hong Kong legislator Martin Lee is called a "traitor" by pro mainland types because he was criticizing China's human rights record in international venues, including the U.S. congress. Interestingly, his critics don't dispute the substance of his charges, they just don't like the fact that he was broadcasting his grievances to foreigners. My response to "patriotic" type is that he wouldn't have to go to the white man if the Chinese rulers have enough self respect. If anyone should feel ashamed, it should be the people in charge who would only take the foreigners seriously.

I remembered many years ago when I started university I met a group of students from mainland China. I asked them about the situation in China. They all told me things were really rosy and the foreign media only focused on the negative, etc. Then in the middle of it this guy from Shanghai got really angry and told them to shut the fuck up. He then said everything they told me were lies, they oughted to ashamed of themselves to have treated me like a foreigner, He didn't necessary object to lying to foreigner, but he considered me a Chinese person, so I had the right to know the truth,

Edit And oh, even the judge, whenever he was asked about China by our white neighbours, he would tell them one story, and he would tell me something completely different in Chinese when they were gone.

I have Mao, the untold story on the shelf at home. Wife wants to read it but can't - not yet.

I don't think your wife would like it. From what I gather there is a lot of yellow journalism and I don't know how the author would know so much about Mao's private life unless she hid in his bedroom.

191. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174152 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Goldy

But talking to those that are here, those that study, that live, that are married outside of China, life is not as bad as you think.

True. But those are probably members of the urban middle class.

It is easy to circumvent things there, information is there for the taking and everyone knows how to get it...if they want (the recent BBC thing about truthful reporting shows many are as lazy as Fox news watchers).

I know that. But again you are talking about the urban middle class. They are not so bad off, never dispute that. But still the majority of Chinese live in the rural area and many don't have access to basic health and education. I don't think they really worry about internet access or BBC news. There are two Chinas, perhaps more. Most of us in the West see only one and what you hear about what is so bad about China in the media often misses the point entirely.

The things you describe have been a way of Chinese living since some bloke made unified the states under the Qin - saving money for rainy days is intrinsic to Chinese living and they do.

I am not sure what you mean. Gratuitous consumption is much more rampant and grotesque in China than it is here, for those who could afford it of course.

Several years ago I had a neighbour who was a visiting judge from China. He came here to study the Canadian legal system. He was a young man, about 35, 36..Every night we would go out for coffee with a bunch of white guys who lived in the same building. His judgeship was very interested in the the entertainment venues in Toronto. The white guys were very enthusiastic in telling him about the tourist attractions, the bars, the restaurants etc. He would listen, nod and smile, never said anything. Afterwards he would speak to me in Chinese that these people were really peasants, the entertainment scene in big cities like Shanghai (where he came from) was much grander than anything in Toronto. For example, he mentioned a whole street of Karaoke bars that costed $500 U.S. a night and they were always full.

Being told what to do is intrinsic to Chinese living and they know how to cope.

I think that is a stereotype. If it is so "intrinsic" to the Chinese to be told what to do, they wouldn't have to use such brutal force to ensure obedience.

Blame the wife - she still loves Mao

I don't know how your wife loves Mao. Sometimes I got called a Mao apologist by just trying to explain Mao in the proper context of Chinese history,--by Fanusi, for example.In the West Mao is a cartoonish villian, often mentioned in the same breath with Hitler and Stalin, it is not a fair assessment IMO.

192. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174132 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 5:42 pm

"big bang in my heart"? I am sure you can induce one by eating bacon and drinking the lard.No god required.

193. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174129 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Goldy

Doesn't help that everything is such a secret there - what we know of the economy is what they tell us and sometimes they don't really like to say much...

Lots of GDP growth in the coastal cities are the results of scams, prostitutions, corruptions and their spin offs. Workers have much less rights than they are in the advanced capitalist countries. In China the job of the union (state controlled) is to make sure the workers follow orders.

There is very little social safety net in China even comparing to Hong Kong, not to mention Canada or Europe.

In China the state is a bed fellow of the capitalists, not the workers and ordinary folks, The state is powerful, but it has nothing to do with socialism except in name.

194. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174126 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Goldy

You'd be surprised how free one is over there

You are free as long as you don't talk about politics openly, or broadcasting opinions that may potentially embarrass the government and that can be very broad.

Also, local party thugs have a lot of powers, they don't always do things according to central directives.

195. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174121 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Mitchell

I didn't know that it was your native language, because I only knew you were Chinese, living in Canada, a number of things could be meant by that.

For instance, I find it odd when people that were born in Canada but aren't white are still refered to as being from a country that the majority shares their ethnicity. None of us originated in Canada, not even natives, so I always find it weird.

I understand what you're saying, but I was born and raised in Hong Kong. I came to Canada when I was 17, after finishing high school there.

196. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174116 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Al

I have repeatedly said "State ownership", you continue to dodge because you know, beyond any doubt that socialism is a bankrupt theory. Expounded my wirey haired whackos in San Francisco cafes, shouted by semi-employed "editors" at anti-war rallies, but totally failed when applied to any real society.

I didn't "dodge". I have continued to tell you that you are wrong in equating socialism with state ownership. You are either not reading very carefully or deliberately being obtuse.

I think I have made it very clear for anyone who can read or care to read.

If state ownership is the same as socialism then medieval kings would all be "socialists" because the king was the state and the king owned everything! The fallacy is so obvious that I don't know how else to make it more plain. Socialism means ownership by "the people", the state is not synonymous with the people if the people have no meaningful participation in the running of the state.

Socialism is impossible without genuine democracy

Note that so far I haven't argued for or against socialism, I am just saying that you don't understand what the word means and go on a rampage.

Keynesian is the opposite of supply side economics. It suggest that the government knows best how to allocate certain resources, while the opposite side says the free market knows best.

First of all this is a false dichotomy, To say that government has a role is not the same as "government knows best", Secondly, "market knows best" is an article of faith. It is your onus to back that up and clarify "knows best" in what sense and for whom if you want to argue for an unregulated free market. I have given some reasons why this is nonsense in my first long post yesterday on this subject, which you admitted that you haven't read.

I start from the premise that the market has to work for the happiness and well being for people, not the other way around.If you have a system where people have to justify their values based on their utility as profit making tools then the system is inheritly wrong.

There must be a reconciliation of the two points. Sometimes the government should administer programs, and sometimes it should not. That is a realistic form of capitalism. But look around you and see the countries flourishing as they become free markets or continue to refine free markets

Then it is not the kind of libertarian "market knows best" capitalism that you seem to be advocating. Many Americans would call Europe "socialist". China is a closer approximation to "free market" than any European country and it has a lot of problems underneath GDP growth and corporate balance sheets.

197. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174110 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 4:36 pm

He said he works for NASA, or hinted at it. Actually he said something like I work for an agency with four letters the first one being N and the last being A.

Maybe he meant NADA, meaning unemployed. Also, working for NASA is no big deal,NASA has janitors too.

Sorry DD, just can't resist it. :)

198. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173996 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:17 pm

The slogan "moderates enable fundamentalists" makes about as much sense as "Keynesianism covers for communism."


Just thought of that, I can use it as a bumper sticker slogan even though I don't have a car (Teratonis would approve)

199. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173991 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Mitchell

How many do you know Bonzai?

I don't know, I never counted or estimated the number. I can read and write Chinese fluently, I used to write for the school magazine, I speak both Mandarin and Cantonist, though I don't know pinyin. :)

Chinese is my native tongue,

200. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173981 by Bonzai on May 1, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Steve

You have done far more than that. You often argue that influence of religion is minimal in situations where others consider it significant.

It should be based on the merit of the argument, not whether others consider significant or not. I can take on anyone in those cases.

BY your argument Al should be the biggest apologist as he doesn't even believe that the label "religion" should have any special status at all in those type of discussions.