401. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159015 by hungarianelephant on April 11, 2008 at 10:43 am

Not to condone Monique Davis' behaviour, but isn't it up to Rob Sherman to determine whether her apology was "inadequate", "late" and with a "grossly inadequate excuse"? And telling CBS seems an odd way of doing something in private.

402. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158985 by hungarianelephant on April 11, 2008 at 9:32 am

I don't get it.

For the sake of argument, let's accept that:

(1) the numbers of Jewish dead are difficult to ascertain and may have been exaggerated;
(2) some of the eyewitness accounts are unreliable;
(3) there was an amount of exaggeration in the contemporaneous documents, since the people creating them had a motive to suggest that large numbers of Jews were dead;
(4) one of the prime roles of Auschwitz was as a centre for onward transportation, and most of the people who arrived there left alive;
(5) Stalinists systematically tortured Nazis and got hold of unreliable confessions;
(6) parts of the camps were rebuilt after the war for the purposes of education;
(7) gas canisters, hair and shoes don't necessarily imply deaths.

You're still left with overwhelming evidence that the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jewish population, did in fact round them up and move them around, and then large numbers ended up dead.

No amount of ink or cut-and-paste HTML will get over that.

403. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158212 by hungarianelephant on April 10, 2008 at 8:13 am

irate - Indeed. It's just that you do that with such gusto and eloquence. Could you blame people for focussing on that talent?

404. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158192 by hungarianelephant on April 10, 2008 at 7:36 am

46. Comment #158159 by j.mills on April 10, 2008 at 6:48 am

Well, plus, ya know, call me a pedant, but ain't prostitution still illegal in the UK?

No. Never has been. Shagging a rent boy was illegal until 1967, but it wasn't the payment that was the issue. Soliciting is illegal, as is "keeping a disorderly house" (aka running a brothel) and so is "living off immoral earnings" (aka pimping). But there's no suggestion that what Oaten was up to was actually illegal.

The reason I mention it was because you can cast the episode as showing poor judgment, or a deceptive character. In truth, neither of these seem to cut much ice, not when the majority of married people will also have extra-marital nookie at some point. It was about the boys-together thing, wasn't it? And I can't really see what that has to do with the price of fish on a Wednesday. Unless, as irate says, the rent boys were telling him how to vote.

405. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158124 by hungarianelephant on April 10, 2008 at 5:16 am

Hmm. How far do you want to take that? Do we have a right to know about Mark Oaten's activities with rent boys?

[Edit - that comment related to 39-41, not YGern's]

406. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157603 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 10:26 am

144. Comment #157568 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 9:20 am

But at least the denazification worked, German society and politics is as aware of the dangers of nationalism, unquestioning, rallying-round-the-flag patriotism, and militarism as can be... and we (or at least I) will always point the finger at any person, group or nation that is moving in that direction.

I wonder how much the rest of us have learned.

One of the great difficulties with the Holocaust and its aftermath is that it's difficult to have much of a discussion without tempers becoming quickly frayed. It's illegal in much of Europe to question the official line and, Cartomancer's observations notwithstanding, pretty much impossible to hold a high profile debate elsewhere. David Irving's attendances at the Oxford Union and University College Cork were recently cancelled on the grounds of "public order", which increasingly appears to be a police tool to suppress any activity of which they personally disapprove (and if you don't believe me, watch Night Cops on Sky One. I'm just saying.) This is madness. It plays into the hands of people who are proven liars by allowing them to paint themselves as brave voices of dissent.

It does not stop there. Take the standard assertion that "six million Jews were exterminated". Is this actually true? The final death tally is unclear. The Benz study put the number somewhere between 5.3 and 6.2 million. Would the Holocaust be less horrific if "only" 5.3 million Jews died? Of course not.

"Exterminated" is also a loaded term. It is clear that a very large number were rounded up and deliberately killed. Another large number were rounded up and worked to death or left to rot. We know this. The most famous victim of all, Anne Frank, was not gassed or shot. She died of typhoid, most likely caused by the unsanitary conditions in the camps.

Is this morally preferable to deliberate killing? I would suggest not.

What you get by insisting on specific formulations is enquiring minds wondering why it is necessary to formulate it in a particular way, and - more disturbing - whether some of it might not be as it appears to be presented.

Most worrying is the question of who ordered the whole thing. The discussion, to the extent that it takes place at all, usually centres around what Hitler said and what Hitler knew. The assumption seems to be that there is a binary choice between blaming Hitler and exonerating Hitler. What troubles me is that this ignores the evidence that a lot of local commanders were acting on their own initiative. Essentially, they appear to have been told to deal with the "problem", and left to fill in the details for themselves. Half of the camp deaths were in just seven camps. This ought to lead us to question the capacity of lots of people to do, for want of a better word, evil. We'd all like to blame it on the top guy, but that choice may not be appropriate.

This was well understood at the Nuremburg trials. Whatever the legal merit of those proceedings - a discussion for another day - and whether or not it was realistic to expect soldiers to defy orders and be shot, a clear moral decision was taken that individuals had to bear some responsibility for their own part in what happened.

No doubt that is painful for everyone involved. The Nazis were not solely Germans. They were drawn from every one of the occupied countries. Had the invasion of Britain succeeded, it's reasonable to assume that there would have been a Vichy-style government based somewhere like York or Durham, and that Brits would have volunteered for the SS - so no moral highground for us either.

By oversimplifying the issues, we deny ourselves the possibility of actually dealing with the Holocaust. We may also leave people with the view that this discussion is finished, and we should all move on. Germany knows that this is not so. Do the rest of us?

407. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157430 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 4:50 am

Grand. Sex, religion and politics it is.

Oh, wait ...

408. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157425 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 4:43 am

Naivete about business and money is another of my bugbears about what currently passes for education. Surely these are essential survival skills in the modern world? I'd create time by getting rid of the utterly pointless "collective act of worship". Mumbling "Praise My Soul The King Of Heaven" and then being told not to run in the playground doesn't seem quite as useful as understanding the concept of gross margin, somehow.

409. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157423 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 4:36 am

It's certainly true that most "new" drugs are reformulated old ones. FDA approved just 17 new molecules in 2006, 19 in 2007 including 2 biologics.

There are good reasons for that, which probably have nothing to do with creationism in schools. If we're still talking about that.

410. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157402 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 3:50 am

370. Comment #157394 by Steve Zara on April 9, 2008 at 3:28 am

Er, no, not completely sure. My understanding was that most of that work goes on in theoretical models. That only gets you so far, because pharmaceuticals have an unnerving habit of exhibiting different behaviour in organisms. Even chimp studies are not a reliable guide to the effect on humans.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that any such research (and indeed all other research, including primary drug discovery) is dwarfed by spending on development of specific drugs in human trials.

411. The books that inspire me

Comment #157397 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 3:34 am

I can't seem to get the links to work. However, I must say that I am disappointed by the omission of Mike Inkpen's classic work, Where, O Where, Is Kipper's Bear. A whimsical tour of the natural world and beyond ... the inherent urge to be with our loved ones ... and the finale reconciling these with technology, all in delicate and lilting verse, with not a word wasted. What better parable could there be for our times?

412. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157389 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 3:21 am

362. Comment #157177 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Is Chinese medicine "science"? I think that is a good paradigm for technologies that "work",--in some sense,-- but you don't necessarily know what are the scientific basis of why they work. This also applies to a substantial part of modern drug industry. With double blind testings and what not they have refined the method of trial and error so they can say perhaps with more confidence that drug A would cause effect B, but they don't always know why that is the case.

Absolutely. Nor, indeed, does our regulatory system care why drugs work. Its only concern is that they do. The label for the vast majority of drugs, and nearly all new ones, states that "the mechanism of action is unknown".

The scientists working on the drugs typically have a pretty good hunch as to how and why it works. They may also have an idea of the sort of side effects that might be seen. This expertise is crucial to the design of clinical studies. At $1bn per drug development costs, you want to be getting this right pretty often, and this is where the top pharma scientists earn their corn.

There's no money in finding out why drug X works, so this research doesn't generally get done. The downside of which is that you have less data from which to work on drug X2.

Pure science doesn't really come into it.

413. In search of the God particle

Comment #156864 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 10:44 am

But I notice no denial ...

(For the avoidance of doubt, the raised eyebrow doesn't work too well on the internet, and I am not at all worried about this experiment. For one thing, if it does go awry, we'll all be dead in seconds, right?)

414. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156860 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 10:40 am

Jeez, Alex, you're really down on the world today. Have you tried tea? Philip will give you instructions on how to make it (clue: you need boiling water, not those ridiculous semi-warm cups they give you with a teabag in NY).

415. In search of the God particle

Comment #156855 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 10:29 am

See, if I were a scientist, and I had an experiment that (a) had a good chance of discovering something important, but (b) had a small chance of destroying the planet, I'd probably think "fuck it" and go ahead anyway. And you know that this is what they are thinking too.

The last words spoken on Earth will be not "Allahu Akhbar", but "What would happen if we did this?"

416. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156818 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 9:41 am

I have to say ... if I found it joyless here, I don't think the FCOS would be top of my list of must-post places.

417. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156795 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 9:10 am

201. Comment #156787 by al-rawandi on April 8, 2008 at 9:00 am

It is the greatest affront to contract law I have ever seen.

I'd give that prize to the "social contract". No voluntary assumption of responsibility, no consideration, no need for consent to amendments, no right of termination, indefinite restrictions, penalties and forfeiture on breach - not a court in the free world would let it stand.

By the way, where can we see these girl fights of which you speak?

418. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156788 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 9:03 am

And Steve called me cynical ...

419. In search of the God particle

Comment #156786 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 8:57 am

The Times refused my comment, which was a kind offer to bet every one of the sceptics $100 that the experiment would not cause the end of the world.

Worth a try, I thought.

420. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156760 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 8:28 am

181. Comment #156746 by yussel123 on April 8, 2008 at 8:17 am

Are you suggesting that drug use is NOT harmful and that it is not motivated by a desire to escape reality? What other explanation would you give for the fact that people intentionally alter their minds and suffer irreparable harm ?

Hang on before you lose the run of this.

I didn't mention drug use, or assert that it isn't harmful. And I particularly didn't talk about the motivation for drug use. "Escaping reality" is one possibility, but it's not self-evident. It could also be the search for other states of mind which are also "real". The most common narcotics are popular because they produce feelings - usually more intense - similar to those generated during sex. I've yet to hear anyone suggesting that there's something "unreal" about the post-orgasmic state, except possibly in a poetic sense.

But that's something of a side issue. You're suggesting that there is a motivation, and that it is generated by conditioning as a child. It's up to you to prove that. It's not up to me to disprove it.

[Edited for grammar]

421. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156739 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 8:09 am

172. Comment #156733 by yussel123 on April 8, 2008 at 8:04 am

My evidence is the state of the world. My evidence is the number of people who run to psycho-therapy because they can't deal with the real world on it's own terms. My evidence is alcoholism, drug use, just to name a few things.

No, it doesn't work like that. You have to produce a convincing empirical link between the movies, sports and fairy tales, and the harm you suggest they cause. Furthermore, you would have to show that there was at least as close a correlation and at least as much harm as with the teaching of religion.

"Isn't the world terrible" is not evidence.

422. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156729 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 7:56 am

169. Comment #156726 by yussel123 on April 8, 2008 at 7:45 am

So your point is that all fantasies are damaging, regardless of whether they are presented as fantasies or not? Evidence?

And btw, I was the first to mention 1 Corinthians on this thread. The allusion in #156702 is a breach of my copyright and I will sue your ass over any repeated infringement. Possibly.

423. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156716 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 7:26 am

al-rawandi - I am on record as saying substantially the same thing. But if the government has to interfere - and let's face it, there is no subject in which the government doesn't think it has to interfere - then it would be nice for it at least not to be divisive.

424. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156707 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 7:07 am

Well ok, Steve, perhaps I shouldn't presume to speak for you. Personally I don't find it satisfying that your marriage is not regarded as being the same as mine - or indeed as a "marriage" at all. But if you don't care, I'll take down the barricades.

And I'll be happy to call you Lady Steve if you so choose.

425. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156697 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 6:56 am

I go out to a meeting after making a rude comment about Tony Blair, and by the time I come back it has mutated into a discussion about the merits of the Scottish Raj Labour government ...

I'm not going to get into that, because I never come out of it happy. But just to pick up on the gay rights bit, I don't think I would be too proud of Labour's record here.

The law on the age of consent makes no sense, and hasn't for a very long time. What was needed was root and branch reform. But Blair backed away from that, and with much trumpeting about "equality" produced a dog's dinner of a bill, the only clear part of which was the reduction of the age of consent for homosexual men. Oh, and the previous government was already committed to that, following the Sutherland decision in the ECHR.

It's a pretty limited form of equality, since it's still perfectly legal for a 30 year old woman to have sex with a 15 year old boy, or for two 13 year old girls to have sex with each other. (Now I'm not saying I disapprove, mind. Personally I'd award the MBE to the former. But I digress.)

In order to get this through, Blair invoked the Parliament Act. This was constitutional vandalism. If you complained, you were a homophobe, and possibly a Nazi. As were the Lords, some of whom were raising perfectly sensible points. Not a great start.

For the record, the age of consent was lowered from 21 to 18 during the previous government. An amendment was tabled by Edwina Currie (for it is she) to reduce it to 16. It didn't get through that time. The Thatcher government also decriminalised man-on-man action in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

With due respect to those who are in them, civil partnerships are a fudge too, and characteristic of Blair's way of doing things. That is to say, you make it look nice, without actually getting to the substance of the issue. A sort-of marriage does not constitute equality. Before the legislation was introduced, one William Hague, then Leader of HM Loyal Opposition, indicated that he would support full-status gay marriage. At this point, Blair could have taken this as tacit support for a proper and meaningful recognition of gay rights, and drawn up a bill which would bring it into law. But he does not do this. Instead we get a "compromise" which doesn't really please anyone.

Cynical, moi?

426. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156622 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 4:18 am

87. Comment #156604 by irate_atheist on April 8, 2008 at 2:54 am

A caring, intelligent, thoughtful man. But then again, so seemed Blair.

I beg to differ. Tony Blair was a fake from day one, and would say absolutely anything to get himself elected. And if we had any doubt on the subject, his performance at Diana's funeral, where he read 1 Corinthians as if it had just come to him in the form of profound revelation, should have put the matter to rest. His only redeeming merit seemed to be that he was not from the same party as Neil Hamilton. Though given his cronies' subsequent performance, even that was questionable.

The Lying For Jesus stuff was just a nice optional extra.

Is that the sort of castigation you were looking for, or do you prefer something a little more Mosleyite?

427. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156258 by hungarianelephant on April 7, 2008 at 7:45 am

20. Comment #156253 by RobDinsmore on April 7, 2008 at 7:40 am

The problem comes from the fact that these children will cry "offense" because the teacher refuses to acknowledge their erroneous beliefs. Another problem is that even if they are taught evolution they are still so strongly biased against it. You can't show someone the stars if they refuse to look up.

No, those are perceived problems with certain religious parents. Children are told they are wrong about all kinds of stuff and they seem to come through unscathed. Let's not create a bogeyman when there are already enough problems to deal with.

Edit:

23. Comment #156257 by CambrianExplosion on April 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

that may be true but isn't part of the problem how the attitude toward what parents wish to teach their children - such as YEC - is softening? Rather than a firm "no, that's wrong," we now must mollycoddle those with beliefs counter to the available evidence. IIRC, was there not recent legislation that would allow a student to receive a passing grade as long as his incorrect answers were justified by a religious tradition? I.e., you could write "6000" for your answer on the Earth's age as long as you also write "* I am a Christian."

The combination of increasing magical thinking, as well as our liberalization and gone-too-far multiculturalism, have in a way formed a crucible.

Even assuming all this is true - and we're building on sand here - all that demonstrates is that there is a problem in the school and with the philosophy of schooling. It doesn't make for a problem for the school.

428. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156245 by hungarianelephant on April 7, 2008 at 7:25 am

Er ... what Richard said doesn't appear to have anything to do with the title or opening paragraph of this article.

He was asked about a problem, and he gave an example of feedback that was being received from schools. What he didn't say was that this was a problem for the school. And it isn't necessarily. Children come to school with all sorts of erroneous beliefs, and it's sorta kinda the job of the school to teach the kids how they have it wrong.

429. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155215 by hungarianelephant on April 4, 2008 at 8:38 am

52. Comment #155211 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:34 am

But not all knowledge, like it or not, is in fact contained within the realm that is scientifically observable.

What realms are not scientifically observable, and what knowledge do they contain?

[Edit: Quetz of course gets there first, as one would expect from a genuine deity. Where the hell is Yahweh when posts need answering?]

430. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155207 by hungarianelephant on April 4, 2008 at 8:29 am

26. Comment #155183 by jiujitstheist on April 4, 2008 at 8:16 am

As much as I hate to agree with Artful_Dodger he does make a valid point. I'm an atheist. I think Dawkins is a great man. It's great to have someone of his stature smacking the fundies upside the head. However, there is, at times, too much boot licking going on in the threads. Dawkins more than anyone would want more objectiveness by some on the board.

Well, er, not on this thread, at any rate. The first thing nice thing said about RD here is in comment 20 by Incredulous:

I think everyone on here thinks that Richard is simply a good bloke; and we like good blokes who talk about things we can trust. You're right, he isn't god which is precisely why I appreciate what he does and says.

He's a tried and trusted exponent of that thing we should all aspire to - reasoning with evidence.

Doesn't sound a lot like bootlicking to me.

The second compliment is yours.

We've seen this tactic from Artful before. It was nonsensical then, too. And only slightly less boring than Pascal's Wager.

431. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #154953 by hungarianelephant on April 4, 2008 at 3:02 am

Hello brother john. Haven't seen you here for a while.

It just leaves me with a question: How on earth does a decent human being cope with with the depravity or idiocy humans are capable of?"

Personally, I find ignoring it and pretending it isn't there quite effective. But you've probably seen more of it than us, or at least heard it in the confessional. What do you do?

432. Fleabytes

Comment #153978 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2008 at 10:05 am

mixmastergaz

Whatever happened to Diesel Park West?

Oh. I am a humble man thankful for my rights and inheritance due
How about you?
And I wan't to stay in sight of things that I believe in
And I know to be true, the sweet sweet truth
I wouldn't question letters of authority,
Yeah I keep the bedroom cold to save energy, 'cos it's good for me

And as long as there's something for me
And long as the world swings my way I don't have any complaints
Oh I believe all the myths on Sunday

Yeah. I am as white as snow, 'cept for when I sit out in the sun
The hot sun, then I look so different
Just like I've become an African
I'm always showing clearly my morality
Yeah. I rule by consent of the majority ain't it good to see

And as long as there's something for me
And long as the world swings my way I don't have any complaints
Oh I believe all the myths on Sunday

Yes sir it's a wonderful life making these decisions
Just for you, no-one but you

And as long as there's something for me
As long as the world swings my way
I don't have any complaints
And I believe all the myths on Sunday

433. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #153973 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2008 at 9:58 am

roakes - In the 2001 English / Welsh census, 390,127 people put down their religion as "Jedi". The NSO refused to recognise it as a religion, but then published the stats anyway.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/rank/jedi.asp

Had it been counted, it would have been the fourth largest, behind Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, but ahead of Buddhism, Sikhism and Judaisim. 4 million people refused to answer the question and 7.7 million said "no religion".

Just so you know.

434. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153972 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2008 at 9:48 am

Mein Kampf was serialised and sold to the British public during WW2. This was a bold statement: here is what the enemy is saying; we are not afraid for you to read it; see for yourself whether this war is justified. With a side order of - they burn books, while we believe in freedom.

I have long thought that the US and British governments should publish the collected works of Osama Bin Laden. Hell, for that matter, the approval rating for Iraq would go up 10 points if Saddam Hussein's Greatest Hits were on general release.

435. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153768 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2008 at 3:06 am

One area of apparent common ground in this thread is that there are shades of Muslim opinion and action, and that it's not sensible or correct to treat all Muslims as some sort of cohesive entity.

So here's a question: why do we allow our government to do this? (This is primarily addressed to the UK.)

The govt insists on dealing with "representatives" of the Muslim "community" and such groups. This more or less guarantess (a) that Muslims will be treated as separate and somehow not part of mainstream society, (b) that they will be regarded as having some uniform view of the world, and most worrying (c) that you will have given the colour of leadership, and the influence that goes with it, to people with more "orthodox" - we might call them fundamentalist - views.

The silence from the moderate Muslims that the govt keeps banging on about has been deafening these last 6 years or so - the piece quoted by Brian is very much the exception. It's tempting to take this as assent to the views of the fundies. But it isn't. Certainly, there's a significant minority of Muslims who hold views we should be worried about. So far as we can discren from opinion polls, the majority don't. Generally, we seem to see the same sort of pick-and-mix of views that you get among Catholics. Most, I suspect, just want to get on with their ordinary lives.

Heading off to mosques, negotiating with these self-styled "community leaders" and blathering on about Islam being a religion of peace isn't helping the situation, IMO. We need to stop treating Muslims like a group of children. They don't need special favours or protection against having their feelings hurt by cartoons. They just need to be left alone, granted the equal protection of the same law the rest of us have, and treated as being capable of living up to the expectations it sets.

Is that so unreasonable?

436. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153283 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

359. Comment #153269 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2008 at 10:29 am

There are real problems, real challenges why must you exaggerate?

Partly for fun, partly for dramatic effect.

But mostly because this is very serious. The jihadists want to extend the Dar-al-Islam to the entire world. And they don't want it in the sort of nice-to-have way that you and I would like to see world peace. In order to get it, they're actually prepared to kill you, me, themselves, and most likely thousands of reasonable people who have the misfortune to live in Muslim countries along the way.

The fact that I'm not currently faced with the choice of submit, pay or die doesn't really diminish that, does it?

437. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153267 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 10:23 am

356. Comment #153265 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2008 at 10:18 am

Any lunatic can make any claim or observation they choose. I'm not compelled to believe their delusions, and neither are you.

That's true. You can also choose to pay the jizya, or let them kill you.

438. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153266 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 10:21 am

al-rawandi - I was having a bit of fun with you, now that you've come over to the dark side. I didn't for a minute think you could endorse Fanusi's plan.

Funny thing is, it doesn't seem all that radical to me. It doesn't involve any more foreign adventures - it's largely about "us" rather than "them".

On immigration, it's possible to support the essence (trying to stop more people with the same ideology from turning up) without going quite as far as a total ban on immigration. I don't think it's fully understood in the US just what the nature of the problem here is. In Southern Europe, Muslim immigrants are principally North African economic migrants. There are a significant number who seem to have little grasp of basic civics, but my impression is that the overwhelming majority are just trying to make a go of a semi-westernised life.

Britain also has economic migrants, but there are also a significant number of people who are brought in to deepen the connections with Pakistan. Brides are routinely imported from some god-awful backwater because British Muslim girls keep getting uppity: y'know the kind of thing - wanting to get a job, dress Western, have a boyfriend. And don't even get me started on the imams.

This is done with the express purpose of trying to prevent integration and assimilation, and I don't see why we should continue to stand for it. We have enough trouble with Pakistan as it is, without bringing it here.

439. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153262 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 10:03 am

148. Comment #153246 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

This story has barely touched the mainstream press. A google news search shows Canada, of course naturally, is the most active

That may be more of a comment on the perceived relevance of the UN than on apathy about human rights generally.

440. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153257 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 9:50 am

al-rawandi - OK, so now what? How much of this would you endorse?

441. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153244 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 9:25 am

346. Comment #153239 by al-rawandi on April 1, 2008 at 9:15 am

I think it will be more clear the next time a toddler is splattered on a wall in the underground from a suicide bomb.

It won't. Seriously. We've had 9/11, Madrid, Bali, 7/7, a drumbeat of news about Muslims blowing themselves and everyone else up, and none of it has made a damn of difference to most people.

I honestly believe that most people will only "get it" when a major city they know is destroyed, or when they are personally, directly and (this is the most important bit) economically affected.

The Irish didn't lift a finger to deal with Slab Murphy's Armagh gun-running operation, until he brought a diseased cow in the other direction and thus threatened the farming industry. I am not making this up.

[This is a comment about the British public generally and not Steve specifically. It seems to me that Steve is one of the few people who has actually considered the facts and come to a different conclusion.]

442. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153229 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 8:47 am

339. Comment #153214 by al-rawandi on April 1, 2008 at 8:08 am
Nooo, not sedition laws. We just spent 400 years trying to get rid of the things. They are far and away the best tool a government can use to suppress free speech and entrench its position.

Violence and incitement to violence are plenty to be getting on with.

443. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153226 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 8:37 am

126. Comment #153203 by Peacebeuponme on April 1, 2008 at 7:41 am

You don't get in the EU for instance, unless you pass a few tests.

That's true.

But it might have more credibility if it didn't keep rigging the tests to achieve the desired results.

The EU's tests for the start of the euro were even more fun than its membership tests. With two years to go, the only country which passed them was one which didn't intend to adopt the currency anyway. A year later, it had increased to three. But by the deadline, waddayano, everyone had passed. Partly because they changed all the rules, but mostly because a blind eye was turned when countries produced their accounts Enron-style.

Let's not go there with our UN replacement.

444. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153202 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 7:40 am

Monosilabbiq - I'd be interested to know what the megalomaniacal wankers running the UK don't consider hate speech or terrorist activity. Barney the Dinosaur singing "Caring Is Sharing" seems reasonably safe ground, but beyond that I'm a bit reluctant to open my mouth back home.

Given that shouting the word "rubbish" at Jack Straw can get you arrested and held without charge under the Terrorism Act, it doesn't seem in much of a position to lecture the rest of the world on free speech and liberty of the individual.

445. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153177 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 7:07 am

110. Comment #153174 by jshuey on April 1, 2008 at 7:02 am

The UN outlived its usefullness decades ago. What is needed is a new, expanded Western Community, made up of democratic nations willing and able to speak for and defend the rights of their peoples rather than abandon them at the first appearance of a mob.

So we're ruling out Britain, right?

446. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153164 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 6:39 am

90. Comment #153134 by Edanator on April 1, 2008 at 5:23 am

I don't know much about SA, but judging from RSF their press is very free and they definitely stand out in this crowd of mostly dictatorships and pseudo-democracies. Mauritius and Mali are two other countries that seem odd here, given their relatively free press. Therefore I ask again:

Why is South Africa, Mali and Mauritius voting in favor of this amendment? (Mali has a 90% muslim population, though, which may explain their support.)

There's a tendency in the West to think that when apartheid ended, South Africa became a land flowing with milk and honey, full of shiny happy rainbow people holding hands.

The reality is rather different. Mandela managed to prevent a civil war - and it is for this that he is feted in his own country, not for beating the evil whites - but that's about it. The new people running the country had never been in government and hadn't a clue how to do it. They made a mess of the economy, lost control of law and order and allowed a bunch of kleptocrats into positions of influence. There are members of the government who are quite clearly mad.

The murder rate is higher than Iraq's. Rape is commonplace. It's been 14 years and millions of people are still living in shacks. I have personally been on the receiving end of an attempted robbery - in broad daylight, in the middle of the Cape Town CBD, by a 12 year old girl - and know dozens of people who can recount similar stories.

I believe SA has the second highest rate of HIV in the world, after Swaziland, though those statistics may be a little out of date. Its health minister recommends herbal remedies, and refuses to speak against the common myth that you can cure yourself of it by having sex with a virgin (which in practice means raping a teenager). Its mining activities have fallen away in a time of commodity boom, and unemployment is rife. To the extent that the government has a plan to deal with the economic situation, it seems to involve people in the townships selling Coca-Cola to each other.

Notionally a democracy, one party dominates politics. The press is free for now, but I would bet on that situation worsening over the next 20 years.

Remember that the biggest hot button of all in SA is racial discrimination, and that the folks back home are more concerned about where their next sheep's head is coming from than world human rights, and it begins to make sense why they voted that way.

Mali and Mauritius - pass.

[Edit - Just seen Fanusi's post. Sorry to be repetitive.]

447. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153157 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 6:23 am

89. Comment #153133 by mmurray on April 1, 2008 at 5:20 am

I agree the UN should have an army. Ultimately someone is going to have to police nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

Why? So far, it's managed to allow Pakistan, India and North Korea to get hold of nukes, done 9/10 of bugger all about Saddam's constant flouting of resolutions, and pontificated a bit about Iran. Is this really better than having no one doing it?

But at present you have to work really hard to get agreement amongst UN members to send actual fighting forces.

And why is that?

I don't see how you could even begin to do that without the UN ?

Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Iraq ...

If you mean "do that with the air of legitimacy and without the UN", then you may be right. But I'm not sure I wouldn't have preferred an "illegitimate" ad hoc coalition to go and sort things out in Darfur. As it is, we seem to be intent on sitting around passing resolutions until everyone is dead and the problem is moot.

448. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153129 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 5:13 am

81. Comment #153114 by Steve Zara on April 1, 2008 at 4:07 am

So you don't support the World Heath Organisation or UNICEF, or the International Court of Justice, or the UN Peace-Keeping forces?

There have been major failures, but I don't think it is reasonable to describe those activities as a "joke".

Nor would I, but only because I don't see the funny side.

So far as I can see, the UN manages to make a dog's breakfast of everything it does. Even things that are supposed to be non-controversial, like providing water supply systems to parts of the world that don't have them. It is well known by the people who supply these things that they should double their normal price and then add a little bit more on. Some is siphoned off in bribes to local officials, sometimes the UN people take a bit more (though that's usually restricted to programs like Oil For Fraud Food), and the rest goes in increased profit margin for the first-world supplier. Because that will address global poverty.

As for the UN peacekeeping forces, they sound like a great idea until the shooting starts. If you want something done, better to send in actual fighters. That we should have learnt in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, and for those who think Israel's response to Hizbollah rockets was "disproportionate", Lebanon.

I'm not suggesting that this is a situation beyond reform, but as things stand I don't really see how the world would be worse off without the UN.

449. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153083 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:38 am

65. Comment #153036 by Edanator on March 31, 2008 at 11:12 pm

I'm also disappointed to see South Africa voting in favor. Anyone has a clue why they voted as they did?

Is that a serious question?

450. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153080 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:30 am

By the way, ladies and gentlemen, Bonzai and I will be taking your silence as assent to the policy that we shoot Islamic terrorists with bullets coated in pigs' blood, and if they succeed in blowing themselves up, cut off the family jewels and feed them to the swine.