351. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #205316 by Peacebeuponme on July 7, 2008 at 4:41 am

bollocks

For crying out loud Zara

When are you going to stop being a

Drippy
Soft left
Let's wait and see
Nothing is simple
Not enough scientific evidence
Humanity can get along
It can't happen here

Pedant

Any chance of you starting to post constructive comments? All of yours so far seem to be merely critiquing other posts, which while occasionally welcome, do not make you stand out as a contributor.

352. Prayer refusal pupils 'disciplined'

Comment #205286 by Peacebeuponme on July 7, 2008 at 2:39 am

I'm sure this has already been said, but the hypocrisy of the mother's statements is breathtaking:

Making them pray to Allah, who isn't who they worship, is wrong

and

My child has been forced to pray to Allah in a school lesson.

It's clear that the child being forced to pray to God would have provoked no such ire.

I was made to pray, or else face punishment, at my junior school, like most UK children. Would be nice if similar outrage was generated about that.

353. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203615 by Peacebeuponme on July 3, 2008 at 8:44 am

Steve

Whatever happens, I can't see additional mainstream legitimacy to homophobia arising, given that 1 billion catholics and 1 billion muslims are already bigoted.

I don't think that is a reasonable statement. Their official religion may be bigoted (and that certainly is a problem), but I don't think one can say that 2 billion people are all bigoted.

In the same way, whatever happens with the CofE, I can't see an increase in homophobia occuring amongst the population.

354. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203553 by Peacebeuponme on July 3, 2008 at 6:28 am

Steve

If this goes ahead, there will be a recognised group that supports this homophobia.

There already is such a group. Unless I'm missing something The Church of England has been homophobic by default, in common with most major religions, until the liberal clergy started to change things.

Whatever happens, I can't see additional mainstream legitimacy to homophobia arising, given that 1 billion catholics and 1 billion muslims are already bigoted.

355. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203535 by Peacebeuponme on July 3, 2008 at 5:28 am

I don't know why Peter Tatchell is bothering to campaign. Let the deluded gay haters have their church, and the deluded gays theirs.

The only issues to campaign for here is to kick the bishops out the House of Lords and for our Head of State to reliquish the title of supreme governor of the church of england. Next up then is to remove all tax breaks for religious organisations.

Once that's done who cares what they squabble about?

356. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202815 by Peacebeuponme on July 2, 2008 at 3:10 am

Clearmind - is this thicko still here? He asks of Richard

I have read most of your books and that is why I am here. My advice to you is that if you can, travel to the space or watch a space movie and try to see how amazing the world and solar system it is. Do not look at it but just see it, then you will not have to have interviews every days write a book each year trying to prove that amazing universe and our palace like earth came into existence by all chances and luck.

That has given me reason to chuckle this morning. An assumption from clearmind that a distinguished Oxford science professor's position is so just because he hasn't thought enough about the universe.

Yeah, Richard: buy a telescope. Surely you will find God staring back down the other side!

Clearmind: you cannot have read any of Richard's books, as this amoeba of an argument (the 'argument from personal incredulity') has been addressed within them.

Cock.

357. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201662 by Peacebeuponme on June 30, 2008 at 2:35 am

The revived Dr Who has won major awards for drama. There have been some episodes that rank with the best that there is on TV. Blink, Girl in the Fireplace, Midnight.

Have to agree with this. With Russell T Davis at the helm Dr Who has been superb. Blink was probably the best and pretty scary too, considering it goes out at around 7pm. The Empty Child was another unsettling one.

358. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199599 by Peacebeuponme on June 26, 2008 at 3:59 am

Steve

however, I have noticed a tendency to put my foot in my mouth in the last few days, so more considered and careful posting may be necessary, after I had a think about things. No offence intended - I thought I was posting quite politely.

You are probably too polite if anything. I only posted what I did because it looked like you were ducking a debate, and not because of the style of your writing.

Anyway, enough of all that. I am interrupting a sailing conversation.

359. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199117 by Peacebeuponme on June 25, 2008 at 7:48 am

Steve

I always think that when I get that hot-under-the-collar-annoyed feeling when posting, it is time for a short break :) (at the very least I need to consider why my thinking here has been labeled as poor rationalism - this could be correct)

Back sometime soon (you know I can't resist)! No hard feelings to anyone - enjoy your conversations!

The amount of times theists have been pillored for running from an argument makes me a little annoyed to read comments like the above from you.

Calm down and come back and respond!

360. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199099 by Peacebeuponme on June 25, 2008 at 7:22 am

AllanW / TOCT - thank you.

361. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #199091 by Peacebeuponme on June 25, 2008 at 7:17 am

"Forty years on, many campaigners are asking why it is that men and women are still paid such different rates. The UK is one of the worst in Europe in terms of the gender divide, with women in full-time work being paid, on average, 17 per cent less than their male counterparts. When it comes to part-time work, the figures are much worse. The gap is enormous - a 36 per cent gap between the sexes."

I don't understand how they calculate this. Companies are banned from gender pay discrimination. Where I work, there are set pay grades that apply to all: a male and female doing the same level of work will be paid the same.

The issue is more around the "glass ceiling" and promotions for the boys, rather than being paid less for the same work.

362. Carlin on Religion

Comment #199031 by Peacebeuponme on June 25, 2008 at 5:26 am

George was also in
adventures with Bill and Ted
historically

E J Thribb (17 1/2)

363. Carlin on Religion

Comment #199029 by Peacebeuponme on June 25, 2008 at 5:24 am

notsobad

Sagan, Clarke, Carlin dead, Pratchett has Alzheimer's ...

Its called life. Noone lives forever.

We just have to hope people of similar stature are coming through to help us through the next few decades.

364. Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic school

Comment #193148 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 8:40 pm

NakedCelt

Fanusi basically reckons that Islam is more dangerous than any other religion because Muhammad was a warrior. Christianity, meanwhile, is restrained by the fact that Jesus was a pacifist. Unfortunately, this idea only works if every religion is somehow nailed to a specific interpretation of its core texts, which they aren't. Well, they can be, but the only nail available for the purpose is current social and cultural norms, which are inextricably embedded in geographic and economic realities.

I don't think we can pass of all muslim aggression as a result of geo-political concerns and not because of any unique aspects of islam as compared to other religions. Regardless of history, we need to assess the impact of islam as it affects us today. I don't think there can be a reasonable doubt that it is the most dangerous religion today. Certainly in Europe, christians are are pretty marginalised bunch, and even though US citizens love to talk about god, they don't let biblical requirements get in the way of living a free 'western' life, by and large.

Fanusi falls down because he has reacted extremely to what he has learned and abandoned rationality. He has simplified the whole problem to 'muslims = bad and must be destroyed'. As a by-product he defends the indefensible when it comes to examples of Jewish atrocities. I'm left with the rather distasteful impression that he considers muslims as something less than human, whereas I consider the majority of religious people as merely having unfortunate education.

thewhitepearl

Mordacious, I presumed as much from the name...In googling I found that Fanusi seems to be of a swahellian (sp.?) origin and khiyal of an islamic/turkish/iranian background.

I suspect its just an arabic screen name that has some personal meaning. I don't think there is much to infere from any screen name.

I'm still sore because he called me the "a" word.

Its pretty sad that Fanusi has a lot of interesting thinhs to say about islam and islamic nations, but does not seem to find a way to say them in an agreeable fashion.

365. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193143 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Bonzai

It is interesting to ask how the impulse of explicitly to lay down a "codec" for morality arise and in what sense these codecs actually capture the elusive idea of "morality".

It is, and biologists and neuroscientists are researching the matter. Its a pity that its yet another area where theists have the 'I don't understand, therefore god' standpoint.

In a society where no one kills there would be no law against murder, no one would have thought of it. So explicit code of morality may be the result of "loss of innocence". The truly "moral" are not self conscious. The preoccupation with moral questions maybe the sign of a deeply corrupt society. My impression is that the more "immoral" and hypocritical a society is, the more elaborate and detail its moral code will be, as witnessed by many theocracies.

My view would be that the underlying aims of any moral system, for any society, would be the same: something like the best possible reduction of net harm amongst humans.

With respect to 'true morality', unless I am mistaken your point is that true morality requires you want to help another and act on that feeling, without knowing you are adhering to a moral code. That is, you are just doing it because you are a 'good' person, there is no rationalisation at play. Importantly, there is no change in your disposition as a result of carrying out the act.

I'm not sure that's fair, or possible. We know when we feel empathy and know what the results of any assistance we provide are. We get a warm feeling from being good to another. I don't think this reaction renders us less 'moral'.

How should we judge whether an action is "moral", there have to be some ground rules. Where do these come from and how do we decide what they should be operationally?

When you get down to specific situations there are not always simple solutions. However, at the core, we are just talking about a system that helps us get along as best as possible. Rules should be based on this premise, I don't see that it goes any deeper than that.

Religion is the source of moral codes in most societies until relatively recently In some cases these moral codes just formalize and articulate our "natural" sense of morality, like the Golden rule;

Exactly. I would not call religion 'the source' of moral codes, its just that religious texts formalised and attemped to more rigorously enfice pre-existing social mores.

in yet other cases they are just self serving dogmas manufactured by the ruling class as a way to maintain existing social order.

Oh, I'm sure the ruling class exploited the prevailing social climate as best they can.

Since there is a great diversity of moral codes across cultures and throughout history we need to have ways to judge whether an ethical system is actually "moral" and for that we obviously need to apply criteria which are outside any particular system. It would be unsatisfactory to simply adopt a different system and judge the first system according to it, the choice of moral axioms would have to be independently justified.

Well, its impossible to have a totally independent system. We are just talking about us all working out a way to get along cosidering our different concerns. Its a collective concern, and different groups of people may agree different sets of rules so that they best fit each group.

My own view of morals is quite restrictive compared to the number of issues classed as moral by societies. For example, a christian may view acceptance of homosexuality as a moral issue. A prude may have a problem with the Nude World Bike Ride. I don't consider these moral issues as they have nothing to do with reducing net harm. They are just examples of people interfering with other people's business. As I see it, a well defined moral code would ignore such concerns.

I understand Mphil's point that actions "just are" and they carry no values in themselves. But I think it is probably inevitable that we would have to regard some actions as intrinsically moral or immoral if we need a set of independent criteria to evaluate ethical system.

Well, they are not intrinsically moral or amoral are they? They can only be judged as such based on the moral system they are carried out under.

366. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193106 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm

MPhil

I think it is complicated: First, you have to determine what the range of applicability ought to be: Why construct a first-order moral theory to maximize the benefit of one society? What about inter-social relations? What about the nature of that society as it is already - how should that figure in?

Then you have to ask yourself - should society be of more value than the individual? Wouldn't that end in collectivism?

Then you might ask: What is the proper balance between protecting individuals and protecting society as a whole?

Furthermore, what moral code would work best, how do we judge this, how do implement it?

A lot of questions :)

I guess the concerns of moral philosophers are wider than I had thought. Most of those questions relate to implementation rather than the basic aims of a moral code. I would have thought many of them were more important to political theorists.

(On a side issue, I'm not joining the small band of people here who have questioned the merits of philosophy generally. I hope I'm not coming across in that way.)

367. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193101 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 3:24 pm

MPhil

I assume you mean to ask what I think of first order ethics (trying to answer the first order questions of what we ought to do)? In that case, I think it is a very important discipline, but has to rest on solid metaethical foundations.

Yes I was. I think there are interesting lines of enquiry. I've read little bits about the classic questions concerning run-away trains and consideration of moral actions or inactions. I read an interesting thing once about a sutdy that showed that people are more inclinded to do a good deed after just thinking about moral dilemmas. However, the idea of organising society by setting rules or ascribing actions as good or bad in a way that tries to achieve maximum benefit to society doesn't seem that complicated to me. Though I appreciate its not so easy to put into practice.

I know I'm coming at this from a less than novice level, so please excuse any schoolboy errors.

Explaining empathetic urges - that's, I think, something for biologists and neuroscientists to work out :)

I guess I was hoping more for Lil_Xunzian to respond. At least you allow some scope for a biological rationale.

368. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193090 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 2:48 pm

MPhil

Morality is always the ascrption of moral values to actions, intentions, dispositions, traits of character etc. But morality is not metaphysically objective - there are no metaphysical entities, actions don't have intrinsic values. Morality is thus an intersubjective construct - the actions get ascribed value through the application of the concept of right or wrong of an aggregate of individuals in relation to each other. Animals do not have conscious concepts of this kind. They do not ascribe value to actions, intentions, dispositions etc. Morality necessitates such ascription - therefore animals do not have morality. They have social behaviour that has certain effects on other members of society or themselves - they have egotism, deception, they care for each other and have altruism. But we have no justification for assuming that they ascribe moral values to things.

In saying that animals have morality, we simply make the mistake of thinking certain actions/dispositions/intentions etc to have intrinsic moral value - so that when we find them in animals, we ascribe morality to them.

Articulated with precision and clarity once again. Morality is merely the formalistion of a set of rules governing human interaction. We judge actions as good or bad againse these rules.

I still wonder, philosophically where else one goes with this. I'm not sure exactly which branch of philosophy you are invlolved with, but I wonder how you see moral philosophy as a subject.

None of this of course helps explain empathetic urges, but it seems this is not something that anybody wants to discuss tonight!

369. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193064 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 2:12 pm

MPhil

Guys - I think you need to make a distinction between unreflected action that corresponds to what we would call moral actions and morality as in being consciously aware of moral demands etc.

I'd be interested to know where you think I am going wrong on this.

Lil_Xunzian

All I can tell you to do read up on the difference between a moral sentiment and a moral virtue.

Any suggestions?

370. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193059 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Morality has we understand it doesn't seem to have come into its own until moral philosophy came into its own in the axial age.

Yes, well discussing morality and formalising a set of rules promoting an increase in benefits or happiness or whatever to a set of people is one thing. It might require leisure time to be able to rationalise what good and bad actions are in this context. However, this just creates and refines a system which, if followed, should benefit society. It doesn't lead to the production of empathetic feelings.

Human may have had moral sentiments for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but have probably only had moral virtues for a few thousand.

I don't want to end up sounding like the religious people on here, but I have to ask where these 'moral sentiments' (by which I assume you mean empathetic urges?) came from?

371. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193049 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Lil_Xunzian

Evolution CAN'T create altruism. Giving a homeless person 20 bucks would be injurious to my genes, assuming he's not related me. Now I'm out 20 bucks.

I think that's too simplistic. I go back to the question above: why do we not only help out, but really want to? We feel empathetic - by which process do you consider this to have happened?

372. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193043 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Lil_Xunzian

I'm not going to waste my time with a purely linguisitc dispute.

Ok, great. Though I think our differences are more than semantic. The discussion is around how we feel empathy, and act to varying degees to help others, even when we cannot forsee any reciprical future benefit for ourselves. I made two points in this regard:

1. Unless I was mistaken, you seemed to be saying earlier, that religious people acted on narcissistic motives, and any apparent free assistance to others was merely a by-product of this. Implied was that non-religious people are somehow more moral because their urge to help others is the primary cause of their actions.

I maintain that it is actually the other way around for most religious people: they are drawn to religion because they see it as a way to help others. I think the whole notion of purpose and humans special place on earth is certainly a significant other driving force, but this is not the root of their altruism (or whatever else you may call it). Further, I agree that thinking that humans have a special place is clearly a solipsistic impulse, but that has to be balanced against a persons other emotions and thoughts and alone is not enough to dismiss one as wholly narcissistic.

2. You don't agree that our general desire to be a good egg and help out has an evolutionary basis.

I struggle to see how it could have come about otherwise. Empathy, being the emotion that triggers a wish to want to help another must have come from somewhere. How do you think it arose? Simply as a by-product of our consciousness?

What does altruism have to do with cooperation? Duh, you need cooperation to accomplish civilization. To equate "cooperativeness" with "altruism" is to seriously misunderstand the meaning of the word "altruism."

I was not conflating the two at all, but there are links between the two that are relevant to this discussion.

While I agree that there are simple cooperations that can occur because a personal benefit can be foreseen in the near future for all interested parties, this is in an entirely different scale to thst needed to form societies. I think empathy and altruism are necessary conditions to foster the levels of cooperation needed for civilisation.

A moral philosopher would probably contest the cogency of your use of the word "altruism" with respect to kin. That's not altruism. It's still self interest.

It is just one way in which a genetic propensity for empathy and and urge to act to help others might have been selected, since it increases kin survival rates. Initially the urge may have only been to assist known kin. I think a more general urge would be more benefical as it would also trigger action to assist someone that was not known to be a family member. This can then extend to wider groups.

This is all speculative of course, but if you are saying that rather empathy and altruism arose by some other process than evolution and only after we formed societies, then I would be intereste to hear your thoughts. Would we be moving to some sort of meme theory?

373. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193023 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Philip1978

Actually, while I am thinking about this, txpiper, do you believe a snake and a donkey were able to speak as put down in the Bible?

You might also want to ask txpiper why god has not been such a showman in recent years. He seems to restrict himself to drawing pictures of Jesus's face on pieces of toast and convincing the odd lonely person to go on a journey of self-discovery, or sit in a tree for several years.

374. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193019 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Lil_Xunzian

I don't agree with the notion that altruism is hard-wired into us.

I think the fact that the majority of us are, including amongst people who have not had appropriate parental guidance, suggests otherwise

There would be no reason to select for altruism.

A bold statement, given the level of enquiry on the matter that continues amongst evolutionary biologists. I think there are good reasons, such as kin selection, why altruism would flourish. That we have overpopulated the world so heavily as a result of cooperation supports this.

Altruism arises with the advent of civilization

How could civilisation arise, with no altruism? We would never cooperate.

Sure, of course some religious people might be genuinely altruistic and just attributing it to their religion. Those people, however, aren't giving themselves enough credit. They are also deeply confused about the logical relationships between concepts like "religion" and "altruism." I had a buddy who performed the necessary ethical calculations and decided to become a vegetarian. When asked why he was a vegetarian, he said it was for religious reasons. Of course it wasn't, but he had yet to clearly distinguish between doing moral philosophy and being religious. A religious person who performs a genuinely moral act ("moral" in the philosophical sense) isn't doing because of their religion, but in spite of it. They may be confused about the causal relationship, but that doesn't prove there is a causal relationship. What kind of argument is that? They THINK they do good because God therefore they DO do good because of God?

I don't exactly follow the thrust of this bit. What I was saying earlier is that I think religious people in general are altruistic for the same reasons as atheists. I said further that, whichever process leads us to become altruistic (that is, helping others for its own sake and not to gain personally), there is no reason to label one process as more noble than another. Is that something you agree with?

375. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193007 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Lil_Xunzian

I'm suggesting that they are equally IMMORAL.

Equally amoral.

376. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #193004 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Lil_Xunzian

We're asking WHY they care about other people. The argument, let's call it "religiosity = narcissism," doesn't state that religious people DON'T care for others, it states that the REASON they care/the CAUSE of their caring is solipsistic.

You are using the argument that atheistic altruism is more 'noble' because it is not done to curry favour from a higher power. Fine, except I don't think the majority of christians at least act from that line of thinking. I suspect most are altruistic anyway (It is 'hard-wired' in us after all) and, noticing the many community projects undertaken by the church, identify with it. The looking good in god's eyes bit reinforces their actions, but is not the initial driver.

(Actually, given the evolutionary aspect of our altruistic urges, they are nothing to barg about whichever way you come to act on them.)

377. Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Comment #192979 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 11:29 am

Steve

There is all the difference between something being about me, and something being about us

Religion says things like "We are the chosen people", not "I am the only chosen one".

I agree. Religious people I know generally care about others a great deal.

Teapot does have a point though, there are a number who are somwhat self-centred. When you hear about somebody doing something with their life because 'god' spoke to them and told them their path, they end up becoming evangelical preachers or whatnot. God never speaks to a person to let them know they should remain a farmer, or a lollipop lady.

In a similar way, those who think they have live past lives, do not live them as serfs or petty thieves.

378. As the world becomes smaller, the need to understand each other's faith grows

Comment #192876 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 5:31 am

Gallup's rolling poll on religious attitudes shows that most Christians want better relations between Christianity and Islam but believe that most Muslims don't. Most Muslims want better relations too but think most Christians don't.

Yeah, and most atheists know how we could all get along.

379. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192874 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 5:28 am

I just read ReivedtheGift's posts using the 'other comments by' function, so that I read them in order minus the replies.

A summary of his well thought out and logically constructed position would seem to be:

- atheists are wrong
- read the bible
- we are all sinners
- I will pray for you.

I've seen christianity advocated more substantially in church poster slogans in my local area.

380. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192393 by Peacebeuponme on June 13, 2008 at 1:25 am

PGFM

What part of "embarrassed about this law" was confusing?

I've just re-read your post, and I must be having a mental block or something, because I still can't see which way it is turning!

If the the part you have requoted above is the key element, then I owe you an apology for misinterpreting.

381. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192238 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 3:17 pm

al

Yes the Russian kicked some serious ass, no doubt

They lost 23 million in the war. That number still staggers me when I think about it.

382. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192224 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 2:59 pm

al

I am not being crass, but honest.

You are not being crass, but you are making generalisations, and you are better than that. Consider:

that was the only reason he doesn't salute a Fuhrer right now

He of course has also the Russians to thank. And in a smaller measure, the British Army. I don't think you would find many British having anything but the utmost appreciation for the role of the US in WWII, regardless of when they entered. Of course neither you nor I actually fought in that war, so don't really have any pride to take from the situation (Doug Stanhope has a great skit about that)

Europe is a great place, America could learn a lot from Europe..

Every culture can learn from every other culture. Well, except North Korea, Burma and Congo...

Thousands of Americans died at Normandy, Anzio, Arden, and numerous other places, defending their common allies in freedom. Now look what these people say, rather impressive, it takes an exceptional ignorance of history combined with an exceptional large ego.

We should always salute individuals, of whatever birthplace, who have given everything to protect and support others.

European rifle dropper

Every coutry has its cowards and its great men. The US as much as Europe.

Overall though, my experience of this site is that we ain't much different.

383. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192200 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 2:38 pm

al - Don't let one European's crass generalisation based on what they have seen on TV, cause you to respond in similar fashion.

384. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192195 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 2:33 pm

al

they should be allowed to protect themselves in a reasonable way

That's the key issue: what is reasonable. If no-one had guns, would you having one be reasonable? Well, maybe, if you were a 7 stone female and a 15 stone male had just broken into your home. But would you really need an Uzi?

London probably has a well staffed police department,

I feel like you have a quaint 'lil' ol' England' picture of London. We don't. A perennial vote winner is to promise more 'bobbies on the beat'. We never get them. Our fuck-arsed government (which I voted for) has come up with the inspired idea of letting untrained members of the public pretend to be police officers by giving them a uniform and calling them 'Community Support Officers'. They are basically jumped-up traffic wardens, with no greater arrest powers than me, but they give the appearance of us having a police presence.

385. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192179 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Lucas

Is it really as simple as that? Only masser can have a gun, not the cotton picker?

Awfully predictable and petty reaction

Forgive me, I'm just trying to canvass opinion and get an understanding. The stats in UK show black people causing a disproportionate level of crime as well (excepting honourable white crimes such a paedophilia). I don't think we can stop there though, whereas al, who stated those facts in response to my question, seemed to. I know full well he is no racist, and actually one of the most fair-minded, though forthright, people here, having conversed with him many times.

I also know he is a big boy, and can look after himself.

My facetious remark, though intended to be mildly humourous, may have been misplaced in this context though, and for that, I apologise.

386. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192172 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 2:10 pm

al

Most gun crimes are committed by people who are prohibited from owning a firearm.

That is necessarily true of the UK as well. Because we have no legal handguns, and fewer legal shotguns/rifles, there is less opportunity for this. I understand your position entirely though. I'm glad I feel safe just locking my door, even though I do not live in an especially glamourus part of London.

I mentioned Moore's "nuclear bomb" argument before. What is your reaction to that?

387. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192168 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 2:03 pm

FF

One of the reasons why I believe America has relatively high violent crime rates is due to our extremely heterogeneous society. Compare us to a country like Iceland, which is extremely homogeneous, and you will see a tremendous difference in violence. I live in farm central (Suffolk, UK) where the populace is very homogeneous and I never have to worry about any form of violence.

Having been to Iceland I know what you mean, but Suffolk is hardly representative of the UK. We do have London, Manchester, Bradford. Every bit as mixed as parts of America. I wouldn't pick a Pennsylvanian amish community as representative of the US.

American and European societies are also vastly different.

I imagine they are.

Having lived in both I can clearly see how Europe lives in a very much post-WWII world while America largely escaped the horrors of that conflict being fought on its home soil. Europe was so dramatically changed after WWI and WWII that many Europeans have an extreme aversion to violence that Americans do not.

That is an interesting point. Of course the war was 60 years ago, and guess what? Our younger generation seem increasingly violent (though that may be due to the natural inclination to view current times as worse than past times)

E£uropean and American culture is vastly different and I consider it highly unfair to compare the two. You can't just argue that Europe has more restrictive gun laws and therefore they have less gun crime. Firstly, this doesn't take into account knife crime. Secondly, it does not take into account differences in culture at all, which is highly simplistic.

I didn't want to compare the two, just understand why gun crime is such a problem in the US, even amongst other gun-friendly nations.

388. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192164 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 1:55 pm

al

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, little gun crime. Why is that?

That's the question I am asking.

To be honest the majority of violent crime occurs in African American communities. For instance African Americans are 13% of the population, while they make up 50% of the murderers in the US.

It is often drug related. In my city (Oakland) the are shootings every weekend. Mostly gangsters killing other gangsters. A DA told me they call those "two-fers", one thug is dead, the other goes to jail.

Is it really as simple as that? Only masser can have a gun, not the cotton picker?

Switzerland of course have a very popular racist party.

389. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192157 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm

TOCT

Just listen to this says everything we can say only better

HITCHENS - FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Exactly. That speech should be part of the school curriculum and then prettygoodformonkeys wouldn't say such silly things.

Post #192149 is a cracker also.

390. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192136 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 1:38 pm

al

The US has a lot of gun crime for a lot of reasons, reasons that don't always exist in Europe.

I would genuinely be interested to hear about these reasons. Plenty of other countries allow citizens to bear arms, and don't have the gun problems experienced in the US. I liked Michael Moore's comment about the right to bear arms as well: its 'arms' not 'guns'. Individuals are not allowed to own nuclear bombs, so a line is being drawn somewhere. Why not discuss whether that line is before or after guns.

(This is not an advocacy of either gun control, or Moore, I'm just interested).

391. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192109 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 1:04 pm

compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self-respect."

These muslims need to grow some fucking bollocks and stop being such babies.

Jesus christ. Hurt feelings? Fucking get over yourself.

If we on this website acted this way, we would spend all our waking hours in court suing each other.

392. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191921 by Peacebeuponme on June 12, 2008 at 5:50 am

David Robertson

. course one could say that this is only a few ignorant people whose vocabulary is somewhat limited but the sad fact is that this vitriol is posted on here without any self-correction from other atheists and without the moderator moderating according to his own rules.

But we have the big moderator in the sky don't we? Are you saying this site would be better if it was censored according to one person's mores? You complained about being banned before, so you should not wish it upon others.

The statement that it is child abuse to teach 'absolute truth claims that cannot be substaniated by evidence' is of course itself a statement that cannot be substaniated by evidence

I would have thought that that statement was amenable to scientific inquiry, using psychological techniques.

Also, why did god choose Banda Aceh, Sichuan and the Irrawady Delta? Are they more sinful than elsewhere?

This question has never been answered satisfactorily by a theist.

Peace - He didn't.

How do you know?

393. Fleabytes

Comment #191704 by Peacebeuponme on June 11, 2008 at 1:23 pm

I see Artful_Dodger has found a playmate of similar understanding.

394. Fleabytes

Comment #191640 by Peacebeuponme on June 11, 2008 at 11:26 am

Steve

Al-
You are going to have to imagine this said in a Cockney accent (I'll do my best using spelling):

"Leave it aaaht. E ain't worf it."

I like this new style.

395. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191506 by Peacebeuponme on June 11, 2008 at 5:10 am

Richard Dawkins

I hope you clicked to Amazon VIA our site? That way, we get a rake-off.

Ever the businessman.

Richard, did you catch the "Apparently" cartoon featuring you in Private Eye this week? It did raise a smile with me.

396. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #191333 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Apathy

Though full credit to boris johnson

Please try to refrain from such sentences. I am ashamed of my fellow Londoners on this one. We have a mayor who has talked about "picaninis with watermelon smiles" in his satirical magazine. Here is a clip of him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcgrZs4GXv4

(Actually, watching that clip again makes me realise how annoyingly endearing he is. He had zero policies, but all you need to get elected is the right personality.)

397. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #191309 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 2:32 pm

al

This is what I found stunning, Saudi Arabia took Idi Amin in after he left Uganda, and he lived out his life there.

Especially given the level of racism that persists in the Middle East and North Africa.

398. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #191302 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 2:17 pm

al

Idi Amin
Mobutu Sese Seko
Robert Mugabe
Siad Barre

Don't forget people such as King Mswati III, a man who takes a new bride each year and wanted to spend double the country's annual healthcare budget on a private jet.

399. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #191295 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 2:11 pm

al - you will have to enligten me on that one. His general weakness and white-washing of the whole Mugabe situation angers me, but almost not as much as his inane postion, along with Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, on AIDS.

Everyone with AIDS: forget your Atripla, just make sure you eat plenty of lemons!

400. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #191273 by Peacebeuponme on June 10, 2008 at 1:37 pm

TOCT

I don't know what you mean by that Mugabe has always been a scumbag.

I don't know. I think there is some merit in fighting for the freedom of his people. Of course the minute he ascended then he needed to control.

btw - on Mandela, Mbeki (a fruitcake) and South Africa in general. Their reaction to most of Africa's problems has been deeply shameful. Imagine France or the UK failing to denounce Milosevic, or act? SA are the most powerful and advanced nation on the continent. They have a duty to do more.