401. AAI 07

Comment #84434 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 3:31 am

521. Comment #84423 by mejdrich on November 2, 2007 at 3:15 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen says: So in my view this is a critical issue, even more so than the other issues you mention because they activley motivate the religious against us, while universal health care can actually be presented as an issue both atheists and the religious can agree on. This isn't "their" wedge, it should be our wedge!!

The difference is that, in the case of stem-cell, abortion, and gay-rights, the arguments in opposition are almost completely religious. I simply have never met an Atheist who is against stem-cell research, or who believes abortion is murdering an ensouled baby. There is a real advantage to pressing these issues - to support abortion forces someone to admit that an unborn human child does not have a soul. Stem cell does the same while making an open advertisement of the achievements of science. Universal health care does not share these advantages.

I think that is exactly the point. The religious have from their perspective good rational, but explicitly religious reasons for opposing these things. Thus while US society is predominantly religious, you will always be at loggerheads with a massive chunk of the electorate on these issues.

UHC on the other hand already enjoys the support of many religious moderates for religious reasons, the question I guess is do the religious moderates make up for the losses from the more extreme libertarians? I would argue probably, but your counter point is well taken.

As these provisions percolate through society, the religious block begins to erode and the opposition to stem cell research, gay rights etc. goes with it.

402. AAI 07

Comment #84427 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 3:20 am

I don't need miles of stats to justify something.
If there is a disagreement you do, surely? We don't just make stuff up, and run with it, do we?

If every individual would ask him/her self the question - live by it - we wouldn't be having this discussion. We don't need to worry about 'the rest of the world', they're all asking themselves the question and living by it.

I'm sure this is true, but isn't it merely a recasting of "If only we all loved one another, the world would be a wonderful place.". Also true, but merely a hollow platitude.

As you yourself note by your blizzard of questions, the issues are complex and multi dimensional. You wouldn't like to try and tackle a few specific issues, see were we get to? No?

403. AAI 07

Comment #84418 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 3:04 am

Just because YOU'RE not satisfied doesn't mean I haven't addressed something.

This is of course true, but the reverse also applies:-)

Scooter, you are arguing specifics rather than a general approach. Those are all fine questions but many of them are simply outside the scope of the current discussion.

Lets try and focus on a single issue. Will we try that?

You pick one of your questions for me to answer, then you have a go at one of mine. Fair?

404. AAI 07

Comment #84411 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 2:42 am

Comets - I haven't dodged ONE question on this thread, but nice try. I've said before I'm happy to address the things I've stated and defend my posts.

I have to say, you haven't very satisfactorily addressed my points, or the compelling empirical realities that undercut your (not quite) absolute position.

It's all above if you want to have a go.

405. AAI 07

Comment #84400 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 2, 2007 at 2:06 am

This thread is what happens when you take on wedge issues. Atheism isn't libertarian or socialist.

Atheism is also not "owned" by Americans. American social policy is seriously out of step with the rest of the developed world, and there are some very, very compelling studies that suggest that religosity and inadequate social provisions are casually linked.

If the US adopted some of these provisions, religion might wither on the vine. We all agree that it feeds on the desperate and the insecure, right? Isn't it obvious that modest social provisions would drain that swamp? If it isn't obvious read this.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/10511?page=1

So in my view this is a critical issue, even more so than the other issues you mention because they activley motivate the religious against us, while universal health care can actually be presented as an issue both atheists and the religious can agree on. This isn't "their" wedge, it should be our wedge!!

Those that resist this, for absolutely no good reasons that I can see, nothwithstanding 500+ posts, are merely cutting off their nose to spite their face. Dogmatically clinging to the kind of "dog eat dog" view of society that is a caricature of atheism, and in the teeth of empirical studies that show the direct benefit (to atheism) of a more balanced approach to social policy.

The US has got to become less religious. Crack that, and all the rest follows.

406. AAI 07

Comment #84373 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 11:30 pm

486. Comment #84323 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 6:14 pm
avatarLOL!

"We have plenty of functioning societies that seem to strike a balance and manage very well."

Yes, why aspire to anything greater, no need.

Scooter. Surely you realise that wasn't what I meant at all? The societies I refer to have evolved, and continue to progress despite setting a proportion of resources aside to help the "weaker members of the herd":-)

Some of the most advanced societies in the world provide health care, education to 3rd level, and adequate housing and food for those unable and even unwilling to work.

They are not overrun. On the contrary they are progressive and constantly improving with outcomes better than US outcomes, often for less costs. Population growth, crime and prison populations are all lower. Not to mention religiosity. This is all well documented.

Why is this? You still haven't really explained why this happens, that it does is indispuitable. You also have not explained how your system (where we both agree some children, and probably adults, would starve to death, like in Ethiopa or Somalia. As well as die of exposure, easily treatable diseases and minor injuries) would be superior in definitive empirical outcomes.

407. AAI 07

Comment #84284 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 4:06 pm

475. Comment #84280 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 3:53 pm

you don't allow those who are already dependent to have more children without consequence, which means, "have more kids, you won't get services".

I think that a self evidently misguided policy. There is also no need for it. We have plenty of functioning societies that seem to strike a balance and manage very well.

Why hack off the leg, when a course of antibiotics would clear up the infection? This seems to be adhereing bloody mindedly to a principle for it's own sake, rather than any benefit it might actually bring.

Well at least we know where you stand, punish the kids and the parents will get the message.

408. What the New Atheists Don't See

Comment #84273 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Few of us, especially as we grow older, are entirely comfortable with the idea that life is full of sound and fury but signi-fies nothing. However much philosophers tell us that it is illogical to fear death, and that at worst it is only the process of dying that we should fear, people still fear death as much as ever.

Because being told you might be tortured for eternity due to the transgression of some Byzantine rule in The 2nd book of Pious Musings, chapter 72 verse 113, is so much more comforting than non-existence ...

409. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #84249 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 2:28 pm

While one could argue that there should be limits upon how far any Western government should be allowed to go in acting against people who might present a threat to its citizens, and that there should be limits in how their intelligence services and polices forces conduct themselves, one thing I feel strongly about is that no Western government should ever prevent, or discourage, its own citizens from talking out about the religion of the men who have now carried out several terrorist attacks upon us. Mill also notes that society can "practice a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression" and I think that this too needs to be recognised.

This is the distillate of your lengthy post, and I concur with all of it. The upshot is that Fanusi is, and should continue to be, free to post and say what he likes, and I am likewise free to challenge it.

Where I do disagree with you strongly is your response to the "doggie" site posts. You dismiss this far too casually. In the rabid environment of that site, Fanusi presents an abandon and downright relish for the idea of muslims being killed.

The civilised world has had its hands tied completely behind its back. Our troops are supposed to do everything up to and including giving Qur'ans to these fucks. On the other hand, they use every dirty, miserable, cowardly trick in the book. And we are still kicking their asses!

Just wait until the gloves come off. Wait until one of these scum drops a nuke, or fires a chemical weapon. Then the West will wake up. Then these scum will be destroyed in a few years.

Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 21.07.2006 @ 14:49

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1088

Is it not clear that he and I believe exactly the same thing about the relative strength of the west versus the Islamic world? That we are not at all poised on the brink of extinction? For this reason I fear a confrontation, because of the many innocent deaths that would be incurred in the Islamic world. For the same reason he is eager for it. He hates these people with an abiding passion, a burning fervour and we now see with a calculation that is downright disturbing. To me at least.

No. Fanusi has been deliberately deceptive about what he thinks the best "solution" is. He argues (on the Dawkins site) for action because it will "save more lives", not because he believes this, but because it is a suitably engaging fiction that makes people here think he, like them, is genuinely interested in a solution that minimises misery..

I don't see how the tone of his posts here, and there can be reconciled except to cast him as duplicitous in the way I have described.

So I'm sorry, but I must vehemently disagree with you on that score.

410. AAI 07

Comment #84193 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Well, at what point do we put an end to this stupidity and hold people accountable?

Or should this be a never-ending subsidized program for stupid in our society that we refuse to hold accountable and pay for their every transgression and mistake?

I'm not disputing that these are perfectly reasonable questions. They absolutely are, and any sensible societal response to poverty has to address them.

Yet you are studiously avoiding the rather loaded question I've posed, because it is the trojan horse to smuggle in the next what if, and the next. You've cleverly skipped to the end game with your counter question, and I don't blame you:-)

The answer to your question is a frank I don't know, at least I don't know where it should reasonably "end". I will observe that it should begin with education, health care and nutrition for children whose parents can't (or won't) provide it. I don't think that too much to expect from a developed society, which rejects the idea of punishing children for the mistakes (or crimes) of their parents.

I suspect you agree, but I'd be intruiged to hear your reasons for not doing so if you don't (agree).

411. AAI 07

Comment #84160 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 10:14 am

449. Comment #84142 by notsobad on November 1, 2007 at 9:26 am
briancoughlanworldcitizen,

We can have that debate, but it'd be a new one.

OK. I'm interested in your response to the question, even if you feel it's a new one. So if you wouldn't mind?

412. AAI 07

Comment #84141 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 9:19 am

446. Comment #84128 by notsobad on November 1, 2007 at 8:34 am

So are you seriously saying it's not immoral? Are you seriously saying it's OK to have kids when you know they may suffer and die because you won't be able to take care of them?

You seem to be stuck in an infinite regression here. You appear to be attempting to motivate people that you have already identified as immoral (they have produced children they cannot care for), by starving their children and thus appealing to their morality.

Or perhaps you wish the starved children of the past to be held up as a warning to future delinquent parents? Still though, you are stuck in a similar regression. Parents as cold hearted as not to care about their own kids, are unlikely to be moved by warnings not to have them. Either way, you are going to end up with some kids, which if you're dire warnings are to carry weight, must be neglected and starved, even in a society dripping in material wealth.

There is also the unpleasent, mafiaesque element of using children as leverage. Parents that are likely to be motivated by it are probably good people in difficult circumstances, while those that won't be (motivated) ... you know ... won't be.

The only sensible approach for a society that doesn't like the idea of children starving simply to make some kind of point, is to treat children as individuals. To be treated equally, and provided for within the context of a baseline norm agreed by society, regardless of whom their parents are.

The question of the number of kids that people have, parenting fitness and sex education are interesting discussions in and of themselves, but they should be considered separately from what to do with children that exist.

413. AAI 07

Comment #84120 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 8:04 am

444. Comment #84117 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 7:55 am

Do you accept that a person should not have children if they are not able to provide for them?

I certainly accept this without reservation. However stupid, irresponsible people in the midst of unprotected sex are unlikely to be swayed by this sensible platitude.

That understood, assuming the child exists, and we agree it should not have the "sins of the fathers" visited upon it, we are after all, all atheists here:-) With that understanding, do you accept that the health, nutrition and home environment of a child are crucial contributing factors to how well that child does in school?

414. AAI 07

Comment #84110 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 7:23 am

438. Comment #84105 by epeeist on November 1, 2007 at 7:14 am
A quotation from "Informal Logic" by Douglas Walton.

'One context of dialogue is the personal quarrel,

I've realised I'm somewhat prone to this. Trying to avoid these days, it just doesn't get one anywhere.

415. AAI 07

Comment #84108 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 7:17 am

435. Comment #84100 by scooternyc on November 1, 2007 at 6:56 am

Not sure where you got that I didn't accept free education in our primary/secondary schools.

I don't believe I made an observation in either direction prior to the relevant post? However, progress! We agree education for children should be free, because its a critical component to delivering a baseline starting point for every child in a developed and increasingly complex society. Our sense of fair play, honed by millions of years of evolution and group dynamics, insists that education should, broadly speaking, be provided for those who lack the means to provide it for themselves.

Do you accept that the health, nutrition and home environment of a child are crucial contributing factors to how well that child does in school?

416. AAI 07

Comment #84096 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 6:45 am

Better to show them how to fashion one themselves and allow them the respect of thinking they can rather than insulting them by just giving them the pole.

OK! So you accept free education is a must? Up to what level?

417. Jury Awards Father $11M in Funeral Case

Comment #84073 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 5:45 am

28. Comment #84062 by Bonzai on November 1, 2007 at 5:09 am
BTW, freedom of expression ends when the expression targets specific individuals who are not "public figures" in any reasonable sense (or even public figures if it crosses a certain line)

Libel, for example, is not protected by the first amendment.

Apparently not. About 12 months ago, I spoke to officials in the county they are based in to complain about their web sites, and to posit that their indoctrination of their children constituted child abuse.

The chap I spoke to was fully familiar with them, and completely resigned that there was nothing they could do. Apparently half of the family are lawyers and quite practised at defending themselves from such suits.

I have to say, I think this somewhat stretches Voltaire. This is so nearly hate speech ...

418. AAI 07

Comment #84064 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 5:14 am

Scooter, an embrace of the list of banal and rather obvious platitudes (which you thankfully acknowledge as such) is not the problem.

Everyone gets that.

I'm pleased to see that "a month or two of support" is acceptable to you, and I wonder how you arrived at those numbers? At what point would the system become prone to abuse? Six months? A year?

There are people who through no fault of their own (and perhaps even through their own fault) get into trouble, what society does about that is important. A stitch in time ... and all that. Sometimes an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This applies fairly broadly.

There are reasons that societies with comprehensive safety nets have less crime, smaller prison populations (Swedens is about 20% per capita compared to the US) and overall higher stability, as well as being orders of magnitude less religious. These are empirical measures which mean something, and must be considered. You are a terrible man (Irishspeak for "you do this a lot", not to be understood as "you are a terrible person") for tuning out mountains of evidence that simply disagrees with your position. As an ex-fundamentalist, who's fever has broken, I can recognise the virus at work.

If atheists are interested in our ideas being taken up by ever increasing numbers of the public then education, and social security are unequivocally the way to go. The evidence in this direction is at least compelling, because such states exist. There are no rabidly free market societies where religion has been sidelined as dramatically as in the EU countries, and there is a curve that one can plot to see these relationships, even between US states apparently.

If on the other hand one is merely interested in a hyper efficent and streamlined economy, well even then we may face the same situation!!! There is a reason Sweden spends as much per capita on education, through taxation, as the US does on prisons, through taxation.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. The balance is what we need to discuss.

I don't think you a mean spirited person (although some of your responses in this thread qualify as such, I base my conclusions on a broader set of interactions), but you do latch onto particular ideas with intensity and fervour. This is fine, but you need to recognise when you have left logic and reason behind, and are merely rationalising your dogmas. I gotta say, it sounds to me like this is what you are doing here.

419. AAI 07

Comment #83974 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 1, 2007 at 12:01 am

401. Comment #83925 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Has anyone considered the possibility that scooter and notsobad may actually be theist trolls on this site, planted so as to boost the stereotypical 'heartless immoral atheist' stereotype so necessary for theist arguments? I am prepared to give scooter some benefit of the doubt, but I don't see any rational or 'clear thinking' basis for notsobad's views. I think it is time some people either came out as theists, or dogmatic believers.

Smacks a little of "counter revolutionaries in our midst comrades!!!". Scooter has been about for ages, and he has had fairly coherent arguments about evolution and other topics we would not consider controversial.

I'll grant you, he is an extreme outlier on AGW and now social policy as well. Myself I think it's all sincerely held, after all we know at least 35% of Americans are republicans and thus certifiable. Statistically, some of them are bound to be atheists.

420. AAI 07

Comment #83870 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 1:53 pm

In contrast, the rhetorics that you and scooter spew here confirms the worst stereotype of atheists and gives plenty of ammunition to the theistic propaganda that the atheistic vision is bleak, inhumane and cold.

Gotta say that occurred to me too. Luckily they appear to be a minority.

421. AAI 07

Comment #83868 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Higher education - the US model is working much better than the European one.

I keep hearing it's in crisis. Weren't all the Nobels won by Europeans this year?

422. AAI 07

Comment #83865 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Liberty does not occur in a vacuum.
nor does welfare, "if it could be proven empirically" that welfare systems led to third and forth generations of poverty would it be desirable?

Absolutely not!!! But yah gotta prove it:-)

Nice talking to you too:-)

423. AAI 07

Comment #83842 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 1:00 pm

i don't want higher taxes, thanks for asking.

Nobody wants higher taxes, thats not really the question.

i want equal opportunity, and liberty always before improvement in standard of living. i'l take a short life of freedom before a long comfortable servitude, how bout you? mussolini solved lots of social problems. at what price to have the trains on time?

This is more forthright, but comparing the taxation policy of a progressive democracy to a fascist dictatorship is hardly meaningful, is it?

Liberty does not occur in a vacuum. In a democracy, the people through the mechanisms of the state are the final garantors of liberty. You pay for that, with taxes, taken in principle with the threat of force if you do not comply. Your liberty is facilitated by roads, the military, police, prisons, air traffic control, canals, forestry, national parks, railways ... the list is endless.

Yet you balk at social welfare and education. How very, very odd and curiously American.

424. AAI 07

Comment #83824 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 12:09 pm

365. Comment #83819 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 11:59 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen,
like I already posted, even Sweden made its policies less socialist when it faced fiscal crisis.

Of course an excellent point, one must cut ones cloth to fit. So at one point Sweden was, lets say too socialist, now they are less socialist. Nonetheless they continue to achieve better outcomes broadly speaking than the US, more bang for their buck.

So is it possible that more taxation in the US, and the application of some policies currently standard in Sweden ... lets say ... free education to 3rd level, could be beneficial for the US?

Also you rather dodged the "If it can be proven empirically, that higher taxes ... " question. I'm very interested in your specific answer to that because it goes to the heart of the issue. Please, indulge me:-)

425. AAI 07

Comment #83814 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 11:31 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen,
they may have some things to learn, but certainly not higher taxes

Why not? If it can be proven empirically, that higher taxes result in happier, longer lived citizens, less crime and greater social stability, wouldn't that be desireable?

Think carefully.

426. AAI 07

Comment #83801 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 10:15 am

You think YOU would do better? You think YOUR laws would fix everything?
What evidence?
Your logic: EU is socialist. EU is rich. Socialism makes you rich is so faulty you should see it already.

I don't see why you take such an offended tone. We are just talking about alternatives.

The EU is not remotely "socialist". All of the countries are mixed capitalist economies to varying degrees. They simply all embrace the idea of a strong security net to protect people from temporary misfortune like illness and unemployment. Taxes are used to fund this just like taxes are used in the US to pay for the military, FEMA, or prisons.

There is a balance to be struck here, I happen to think Finland has really hit the sweet spot, Sweden still taxes too heavily in my view. I imagine the US could benefit from examining some of these policies. Or do you think there is nothing left to learn, that the US is a utopia?

427. AAI 07

Comment #83795 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 9:59 am

Enron - corruption, poor management and theft of someone else's money. Those people had at least one thing in common with you it seems. Unlike them, you want to call this poor management and theft a humanitarian act and want to use laws for that.

Exactly. Poor regulation, badly applied with limited oversight. When things like this happen (oil spills, gas clouds and financial disasters) society makes laws to prevent them, laws that restrict the scope and scale of commercial activity. Are you suggesting we shouldn't?

Why the emotionally charged soundbites? Do you want to provoke a fight? I'm merely pointing out the holes in your theory, and there is of course the anomaly of the 500 million citizens of the EU, led by the likes of Sweden and Denmark. This really is contrary evidence which requires analysis at the very least. This is hardly a "theistic" position is it?

You can't simply ignore the evidence. Well perhaps you can, but you shouldn't really. Should you? Aren't you even curious about why the scandinavian model is so mind bendingly succesful when compared to the US?

428. AAI 07

Comment #83792 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 9:57 am

Enron - corruption, poor management and theft of someone else's money. Those people had at least one thing in common with you it seems. Unlike them, you want to call this poor management and theft a humanitarian act and want to use laws for that.

Exactly. Poor regulation, badly applied with limited oversight. When things like this happen (oil spills, gas clouds and financial disasters) society makes laws to prevent them, laws that restrict the scope and scale of commercial activity. Are you suggesting we shouldn't?

Why the emotionally charged soundbites? Do you want to provoke a fight? I'm merely pointing out the holes in your theory, and there is of course the additional anomaly of the 500 million citizens of the EU, led by the likes of Sweden and Denmark. This really is contrary evidence which requires analysis at the very least. This is hardly a "theistic" position is it?

You can't simply ignore the evidence. Well perhaps you can, but you shouldn't really. Should you? Aren't you even curious about why the scandinavian model is so mind bendingly succesful when compared to the US?

429. AAI 07

Comment #83788 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 9:35 am

Enron.

430. AAI 07

Comment #83785 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 9:22 am

Careful! The CEO earnings thing cannot reasonably be legislated directly. Capitalist activity better decides a value for things. Is the issue not about ground rules of accountability to shareholders?

Easy peasy. Tax the arse of earnings above a certain level and the gap between the top and the bottom narrows. Swedish CEO's may earn 10 times what their employees earn, but not 500 times.

Shareholders are a fairly weak group and very narrowly focused, they rarely acheive much as regards limiting golden parachutes and the like.

431. AAI 07

Comment #83779 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 8:57 am

342. Comment #83778 by notsobad on October 31, 2007 at 8:47 am

That's not a rational capitalist act. Capitalism does not exist without respect for human and property rights.

Its a question of degree. If a company pollutes with impunity the air and water we all breath, is this not a rational capitalist act? Arguably with long term outcomes more devestating than our taxi driver example.

Otherwise I think we agree, a capitalist economy has to function within an agreed framework that society negotiates. Property rights, SEC rules, environmental legislation and the like. The bottom line is we decide what the scale of CEO earnings should be, taxation and labour laws, and we commission the relevant legislation to make that happen.

432. AAI 07

Comment #83771 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 7:35 am

I'll have a shot at one of these questions.

1) How does society get to make the most of its human resources?

No contest. Well managed, mixed economies, with capitalism as the primary component deliver the goods. However, left to their own devices, capitalism can spiral out of control. For example, in SA it is not uncommon for taxi drivers to be shot by their competitors. This is a rational capitalist act in a system absent basic rules. The elimination of a competitor for a the modest investment of a handgun.

So capitalism must be managed, there have to be agreed rules that are enforced firmly, and some quite substantial industries in fact deliver better outcomes when the state is the primary partner, and can barter as a monopoly player, for services from the private sector.

This pushes all the onus to compete back where it belongs, while ensuring critical services are provided. Health Care, Public Transport and Roads being obvious examples.

In Sweden health care, and all pharmacies are state run. Yet per capita, Swedes pay 50% of what Americans pay, and for better outcomes. Part of that is because the Swedish government can negotiate fairly hardball as regards the cost of everything from drugs to bandages, and they do. Gospel truth.

Oh and scooter did go a little off the deep end. Although I take the point about him being a decent upstanding chap.

My two cents:-)

433. AAI 07

Comment #83749 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 6:06 am

So go ahead and call me over emotional. I'd rather live in a caring society than the dog-eat-dog world you seem to want.

Amen to that brother:-)

434. Lessons in hate found at leading mosques

Comment #83745 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 5:58 am

29. Comment #83740 by stevencarrwork on October 31, 2007 at 5:27 am
I detect double-standards here.

Do you hear Muslims complaining about the books openly on sale in Britain which claim that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old girl, or that Muhammad ordered the assassination of opponents?

Ummm yes? Much more than complaining!!!

Do you see the Times trying to track down the publishers of these books?

Why would they? These are not calls to murder people, rather they are matters of opinion (and perhaps fact) with regard to history.

No, No, exposing this kind of stuff is exactly correct. As long is it reflects actual reality, you'll hear no complaints from me. Muslims should be ashamed and humiliated by these revelations. Which in my mind is all to the good. The way to avoid that pain in the future is to drive the wahabists from their midst themselves, and ignore the bullshit bits of the Koran as Christians do with the Bible.

435. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83699 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 31, 2007 at 1:30 am

Yeah. I'm done.

Dude. You are exposed as a cunning, articulate and willful propagandist, who has repeatedly disembelled and misrepresented the depth of their depravity, knowing how it would appall and outrage. I have nothing left to say to you. I'm just hanging around to hear what other people have to say.

Post, edit, say whatever you like. You'll never hear directly from me again. That I promise.

436. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83682 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Of course, these days, any concern about human rights, unless its about the human rights of convicted terrorists, is a 'right wing' agenda. Will someone please explain to me how that happened?

This is just the same self serving nonsense we hear from "the right" all the time. Many of the people protesting human rights abuses now, have been doing so for years, while the cheerleaders for the Iraq war (for example) were oblivious (or actively supporting crimes) for decades prior to their current faux hand wringing.

When SH was torturing the Kurds in the 80's did you protest? When the French began nuclear testing in the pacific in the 90's did you protest?

I'm guessing a no on both fronts. I also had a trawl around the internet to refresh my memory with specific examples from the last time we crossed swords. Guess what a gusher of depravity I struck? Holyeeee Shit. You keep some fairly unpleasant company, and enjoy a good laugh about all this when amongst your "own".

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1738

If this is actually you, then you are a duplicitous and perhaps even marginally dangerous individual.

If you are actually a molecular biologist, and I have no reason to doubt your claims on this front, your posts on evolution on some these sites are lucid and devastating, then you are a genuine danger. If you would seriously consider independently manufacturing some kind of biological weapon as you seem to suggest here :

Hey, I'll back you up on this one. Oh, note to the Slaves of Allah: The Emperor may well be one of the most strident of civilisation's voices, while I am something of a very small fish, but I'm a Molecular Biologist. Do you care to imagine what would happen if I chose to spend a few weeks in the lab and set the results loose in your heartlands? Oh, and I'm not the only one who is a MolBiologist and thinks this way.

Do _not_ fuck with us.

Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 15.12.2006 @ 14:02

Then you are dangerous indeed. I wonder if this doesn't constitute some sort of ethical breach?

You have repeatedly accused me of hyperbole, and outright lies. Well here is someone who seems awfully like you, just you know, a hundred times worse, who seems to be using your moniker of choice to say some pretty horrible stuff. The combination of atheist, molecular biologist and rightwing lunatic is pretty uncommon. However, an outright denial would have to be taken at face value.

I never dreamed I would meet a German who held your views. I lived in Germany for 4 years, and they are people who have always had tremendous respect for international and regional institutions, and a deep sense of the weight of their history. People who had learned, at an almost genetic level, that war was the wrong choice in practically every situation. Well you've ruined that rosy picture:-(

You are persona non grata in my book going forward. I've got you pegged, and anyone who reads this stuff, and your enthusiastic comments will have you pegged too. No hand wringing here.

Unless you'd like to deny that these are your postings, and repudiate them utterly?

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1734
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?page_id=1536&stats_author=Fanusi+Khiyal
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?page_id=1536&stats_author=Fanusi+Khiyal&stats_page=3

437. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #83602 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 3:28 pm

If anyone ever ends up with an unwanted pregnancy as a result of such a refusal, I bet they have grounds to sue the Catholic Church for maintenance.

Go for it girls!

438. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83592 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 1:56 pm

127. Comment #83542 by Janus on October 30, 2007 at 11:26 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen's repeated misrepresentations of Fanusi Khiyal's opinion strongly remind me of the kind of stuff that's found in reviews of The God Delusion. They make it painfully obvious that the person in question only understands what he wants to understand.

He rubs me up the wrong way no question, but thanks for your comment sometimes a dash of cold water is required for reflection. Not that I agree, but pause for thought is always good.

439. AAI 07

Comment #83587 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 1:29 pm

I would anticipate that as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland continue to be welfare states for increasing numbers of immigrants, the tide will turn. The pendulum may then swing to where they will be looking to limit governmental supports when fewer citizens are paying into the system.

Well generally Sweden does a good job of integrating migrants, and ensuring they contribute. However the secret is in the taxation, it's stiff, especially on companies. For example for every 40 cents earned free and clear, 60 cents are paid in tax either by the company or the employee.

Pay scales also tend to be much more tightly banded. CEO's may earn 10 times as much as an entry level employee, but not 500 times.

Still, the proof of the pudding ....

440. AAI 07

Comment #83573 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 1:06 pm

When the Social Democrats returned to power in 1994, they responded to the fiscal crisis by stabilizing the currency and by reducing the welfare state and privatizing public services and goods, as governments did in many countries influenced by Milton Friedman, the Chicago Schools of political and economic thought, and the neoliberal movement.

So ... what now? Are you saying Sweden doesn't have the most generous welfare system in the world, some 13 years after the events you mention?

Or is this some American thing where either a system is communist or capitalist, and you're basically unaware that most economies are mixed, some more than others?

Quick tutorial then. The US and Sweden are mixed capitalist economies. However Sweden, although it has a thriving private economy also has universal free health care, free schooling (up to 3rd level) and children are provided with a free travel pass to school, free dental care to the age of 18, as well as one nutritious meal per day.

Maternity/Paternity leave is 10 months (used to be 12, I guess those are the "cuts" you mentioned?), fully paid. This can be shared between parents or "banked".

Nonetheless, Swedes are among the healthiest, long lived, well educated humans on the face of the Earth. How does this fit with the plan? I'm just saying. It needs explaining. Heck it needs emulation!

441. AAI 07

Comment #83555 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 12:10 pm

A system that pays parents for poor children only creates more poor children. There would be no consequence for having children without means. Pure altruism is patronizing to the poor and promotes poverty.

Nooooo. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland ... practically every country in the EU has stable or declining populations that they have to shore up with migration. Plus the most generous and supportive welfare systems on Earth.

It is a mountain of anomalous evidence which requires explaining, or at least some attempt to integrate it into the rest of your theory.

Not looking for a fight, honest (really have my hands full elsewhere), but we don't let creationists get away with bald assertions right? This is the same thing.

442. AAI 07

Comment #83528 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 10:22 am

I also think its patronizing - you are essentially saying these people are weak and can't give up one safety net unless another is provided. I actually think we horrible libertarians have MORE intrinsic faith in individual humans than you do. To you it seems they are just dumb sheep who must be herded from one false god to another, and believe me, worshiping at the alter of a bloated welfare state IS a false god.

Do you deny the common sense element completely? That is to say, when some of the uncertainty is removed from life, the capacity for religion to get its hooks in falls. It simply has less purchase.

Also if you do deny this, do you have an alternative explanation for the 80+ Atheism in Sweden and similar "bloated welfare states"?

Note that for a bloated welfare state Sweden still manages to get comprehensive health care to all it's citizens for 50% of what the US spends.

Infant mortality is lower, people live longer and Sweden is still one of the few EU countries to reach its carbon emission targets. Aren't you remotely curious to know how all of this is managed?

443. AAI 07

Comment #83518 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 9:56 am

This seems to me to be nothing more than common sense, even if one is against the idea of support. You would be asking people to give up God AND strike out alone in the big bad harsh world at the same time. Surely anyone can see that this is a potential problem, no matter what their political agenda.

I have a youtube about this somewhere .... ah here it is:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbgNcPb8f8c

444. AAI 07

Comment #83509 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 9:20 am

On that basis, can we tone down the left wing rhetoric just for now? We shouldn't go out of our way to alienate people who might otherwise be on side. Just my thoughts - I await a good bashing and slap in the face for my heresy! :-)

On the contrary. Food for thought:-)

445. AAI 07

Comment #83505 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 9:03 am

Well in the U.S. the definition of "centrist" is somewhat different from the rest of the developed world. By the U.S. definition the vast majority of Europeans and Canadians are socialists if not Communists.

Good point. I'd crudely define it as follows.

Right: Anti social services, anti AGW action, pro completely free markets, pro the Iraq war.
Left: Pro social services, pro AGW action, anti unregulated markets, rabidly anti the Iraq war.
Centrists: Weak on some, strong on some, basically:-)

Real communists, bank nationalising types, don't really exist anymore.
So that makes me a leftist I guess. What about you other chaps?

446. AAI 07

Comment #83503 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 8:45 am

I suspect there is a casual relationship rather than a causal relationship here. Most folks, at least in developed countries, cluster around the political centre. There are plenty of centrist atheists, I meet them all the time.

Absolutely, so do I. I'm merely noting a bias. If I was to put a figure on it .... 15% right 45% centrist and 40% left. Something like that. For example in this discussion we have maybe only one really strong rightist, plenty of centrists and several strong leftists. It's often similar on other threads.

Complete crap?

447. AAI 07

Comment #83497 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 8:12 am

247. Comment #83495 by Nick Good on October 30, 2007 at 8:05 am

This Chapman fellow seems to be on a bit of a lefty mission. That's fine, but let's not assume that lefty politics are any kind of pre requisite or necessary condition for lack of superstition.

Not a pre requisite. I think this bias exists because it is clearly the more rational position. Enlightened self interest and all that. Though I freely admit, that could be my bias speaking:-)

Still, there does appear to be a left trend in atheist circles. It's obviously not a complete overlap, but the bias is clear. Would our rightists (Scooter etc.) agree, and would they have an opinion as to why this might be so?

448. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83490 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 7:38 am

No, it isn't. Anyone who thinks that the BNP is even remotely equivalent to the likes of Hizb ut-Tahrir is fooling themselves. I don't like characters like the BNP one little bit, and still less do I like Pat Robertson et al in America, but these are nohing like the totalitarian nightmare of Islam. You're fooling yourself if you think differently.

They are both totalitarian. The only difference is that given enough credence to your point of view, the BNP could actually be elected. If people are sufficiently spooked by Islamic fundamentalism. A muslim political party will never come to power in our lifetime, can we agree on that? Or do you see a scenario in the next say 50 years where that might happen?

449. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83480 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 6:38 am

I have trouble dealing with people who simply lie. Not interpret, not simply pick facts to suit them, but just plain lie.

I think you will find the consensus against you on this one. Thanks for the clarification though, it helps to erode what little credibility you might have.

It's obvious; in Europe it will be the far right, quasi-fascist parties (such as the BNP in Britain), while in America it will be the most extreme Christian hardliners. If this goes on, the next Pope will be named Urban.

Exactly what I've always said. These guys are a far greater threat, and eminently more electable than Muslims!!! Once elected, well, the path has been trodden before. We agree! The real threat is in fact a resurgent European fascism. Wow! Eye to eye at last:-)

450. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #83463 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 30, 2007 at 5:09 am

"The issue for me is not about harm to individuals, clearly individuals can act as they please .." - brian

That's not exactly clear. You appear to be saying that you're not bothered about terrorists blowing up buses, or about the murder of individuals (like Theo van Goch). That' can't be right. I mean, I don't want to read you "too literally" or anything ..

Not at all. Simply. If an individual belonging to a particular group behaves like a lunatic, it does not fellow that everyone in the same group will behave likewise. You are reading me to literally, Stop it:-) I'll endeavour to be clearer, and respond to your questions rather than Fanusi's which is partially what I'm doing. Sorry:-)

I notice that you continually use Nazi references in your posts btw; do you not think that the attitudes of some of the real badboy Muslims, mentioned in that report by the policy exchange for example, all that anti-Semitism, and the continual use of anti-Semitic propoganda in Muslim newspapers etc, is very like the Nazis?

They are practically indistinguishable. Nonetheless our response must be be informed by the scale of the threat, not the delusions of grandeur of some muslims. Don't you agree?

I find much of what Fanusi (for example) posts, or the contents of jihad watch, very similar in tone, content and spittle flecked hysteria to Nazi propaganda too. Both parties have a group whom they demonise and despise, and both have a list of terrible "remedies" they wish to impose. On balance I find the worst of islamic fundamentalism worse than Fanusi and Co., but they indisputably lack the means to carry out their more demented dreams. Should a majority of westerners ever be convinced of the case for war, the results would be terrible indeed. Hence I actually consider "our" extremists more of a longterm danger than "theirs", to humanity generally. In immediate terms Islamic terrorists obviously present the most significant threat (but not existential!!) to us. The reality is that they are symbiotically linked to each other, with each outrage feeding and reinforcing the stereotypes, and hardening the attitudes. Thats a worry.

In addition, the Islamic world is not a monolithic block, if it where the "Caliphate" would already exist, and we might actually have something serious to contend with. Still though, given the relevant strengths of the parties we would prevail with casualty ratios somwhere between Iraq and Vietnam. That is to say 30 to 100 to 1, and there would still (this will give Fanusi apoplexy I'm sure) be some room for avoiding a general war. After all India, China and Russia are all natural allies in this particular fight. Although I hasten to add, what will actually happen in a major war is almost impossible to predict, still there are only 1.5 billion of "them" and 5 billion of "us", in principle.

Try drawing a picture of their beloved prophet though ... see where that gets you.

I have always said, and you'll find my posts on this site from months back saying this, that it was a mistake to pander to that kind of blackmail. Every newspaper in the western world should have published those pictures.

My policy on the subject of Islam has been, for some years now, full spectrum mockery and denigration. To bear this out, a fairly cring worthy youtube of mine from 6 months ago, but the point still stands:-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jC7qxSKTAw

Nice quote On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. I read it on your recommendation some months back. Excellent stuff:-)