1. US Treaty with Tripoli

Comment #136487 by Comets on March 1, 2008 at 10:08 am

236. Comment #136482 by scooternyc on March 1, 2008 at 9:54 am �" I live without cost to others

Really? I doubt that very much.

If you truly believe that then you're more of a dick than you have already shown yourself to be on many threads here.

Do us all a favour and Fuck off.

2. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121284 by Comets on February 3, 2008 at 7:12 am

Scooter "Wow, now who's mind reading?"

Yep. A little skill I picked up from you.

LorienRyan "I thought high birth rates was a natural consequence of difficult living situations, in most species, in order to keep the species alive. If that is the case can one really blame them? Of course we don't wish to see this occur - but I can't see how judgement of parents is applicable here. Of course humanitarian action is applicable. "

Exactly. According to scooter this is a naive view.

3. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121274 by Comets on February 3, 2008 at 6:34 am

Okay. Glad we have that straight. You're happy to see children die because of the 'choices' of their parents.

Lovely.

4. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121266 by Comets on February 3, 2008 at 6:26 am

Scooter â€" "you don't want to observe the parents who are accountable for having sex in the first place when they are incapable of supporting or feeding their child knowing they have no contraception by which to avoid pregnancy...and the cycle goes on."

So you let the children die. Problem solved. Right?

5. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121245 by Comets on February 3, 2008 at 6:00 am

Here we go again on the Scooter-Go-Round!

6. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92646 by Comets on December 1, 2007 at 3:04 am

I just wanted to say that I found the unwarranted rude lambasting that Steve got over on PZ's site really depressing. It was a display of the worst kind of knee-jerk yobbish behaviour I've encountered in a long time. I've lost a huge amount of respect for both the site and PZ personally for the way it was handled.

I'm so glad that it's a different story on this site.

I for one think there is nothing positive to be gained by being rude for the sake of it.

7. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92157 by Comets on November 30, 2007 at 1:39 am

Steve99,

I've been following the 'attempted debate' you mention and I must say I was horrified by the vitriol and venom on display against you for asking a simple question. I found the whole thing really depressing to be honest.

I'm sorry to say that the written word is not my strong point and the thread moved too fast for me to post something that wouldn't have muddied the water further.

Welcome back and all the best.

8. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85477 by Comets on November 6, 2007 at 1:47 am

Thanks AntonAAK for clarifying your original post.

I still think you are over simplifying a tragic situation.

As has already been pointed out, the father is also a Jehovah's Witness. The mothers pointless death is not going to change the fact that the children will still be brought up in the faith.

Her actions followed on from her beliefs, so I'm not sure how you can separate the two. Her choice to not have a blood transfusion may have seemed to her to be the responsible and rational act. It's beyond me how, but then I'm not a Jehovah's Witness.

The question is how do we stop this kind of thing happening?

I can't see that removing children from people, as suggested in Goldys post (Comment 29) is practical or sensible. After all where would you stop?

I think the answer has got to be education. If those kids are given a good rounded education that includes critical thinking we have to trust them too see the faith of their parents for the load of old codswallop it is.

As atheists we are always going on about how it's up to the theist to prove that God exists. Well I think that swings both ways. By that I don't mean that we need to prove God doesn't exist (a pointless task on both sides IMHO). It's up to us to educate people, to show them the wonder of the universe and life. How much brighter, bigger and better it is than their little dull books of dogma. The wonder of not knowing the answers to everything... and so on.

Seems to me it's probably too late for the adult believers, but if we can give their children the gift of education and critical thinking we may start to see less tragic stories like the one above.

9. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85217 by Comets on November 5, 2007 at 9:57 am

2. Comment #85196 by AntonAAK – "I think the kids are better off without her personally."

Comments like this disgust me.

To say that children growing up without a mother is a good thing because she held beliefs we don't agree with is heartless in the extreme.

10. AAI 07

Comment #84687 by Comets on November 3, 2007 at 7:35 am

Very sorry to hear of your loss Scooter.

Sincere condolences.

11. AAI 07

Comment #84420 by Comets on November 2, 2007 at 3:06 am

513. Comment #84410 by scooternyc – "Rather than just admitting and accepting responsibility..."

I'm more than willing to admit and take responsibility for anything I have said in any of my posts, no problem.

As for the "...that your behavior has at times been uncivil to people who have done nothing to you nor took anything from you, but desired civilized debate and discussion." That's a bit rich coming from you...

511. Comment #84407 by scooternyc - "Finally, I don't need a crystal ball I can see it right in front of me in your posts about what kind of person you are by the language you use and the statements you make.

Everyone wants an exception made in his/her 'special' case. Everyone wants to spew this 'gray' crap so their particular situation is given credential, so they won't be 'left out'.

You wouldn't need it if you were being responsible in life because you'd be too busy living your life and not sucking off the society's hard earned money."

You seem convinced that because I disagree with you that I must be a sponger myself. Scooter, you no nothing of my life or circumstance. To assume that you do from a few posts on a website is presumptuous in the very least.

I'm going to continue following this thread, but I don't see much point in posting anymore until you answer some of questions put to you.

12. AAI 07

Comment #84401 by Comets on November 2, 2007 at 2:12 am

506. Comment #84383 by epeeist - "Yes - there isn't any argument going on, just a series of ad hominems of both types."

I can agree to a point and maybe some of my posts have been on the 'ad hom' side, but I do think some pretty strong arguments are being made, by briancoughlanworldcitizen for example. They are just not being responded to in any meaningful way.

507. Comment #84394 by mejdrich – "Agreed. Five hundred posts in, no progress made, and no end in sight."

Well I think there are a lots of threads on this site that follow a similar pattern. What should we do? Is it just a waste of time to discuss things with people of opposing views?

I think Matthew Chapmans original point is valid. If you want to take one support network away from people then you probably need something to replace it. To me that seems quite an important issue and it's worth debating how that could be best achieved.

13. AAI 07

Comment #84381 by Comets on November 2, 2007 at 12:20 am

504. Comment #84373 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Nicely put Brian.

Sums it up pretty well to me.

I look forward to Scooters and Notsobads responses, although I fear it will be the same old dodging the question of how their views will actually improve and progress society as a whole.

If you live within a society, you must contribute to that society. You don't like that, well go buy an island somewhere and become self sufficient.

Their system just seems a way of justifying being selfish.

As Kurt Vonnegut was fond of saying "So it goes!"

14. AAI 07

Comment #84360 by Comets on November 1, 2007 at 10:43 pm

475. Comment #84280 by scooternyc – "You cut off the IV of services and money immediately to anyone NOT already on the take.

Then you slowly wean off those that are; 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 your 'on the take' comment sums it up really. You see anybody that needs welfare as a lazy lo-life bum who can't help themselves. Scooter grow-up! Life is not that bloody simple. You seem to lack the imagination to envisage how anyone could possibly find themselves in a situation, through no direct fault of their own, where they need help. It's easier not to think about it and say that they are all a cancer on society and should never, under any circumstance, be given help. 'Fuck 'em! I'd rather see people stave and die before giving them a single one of my tax dollars!' seems to be your mantra.

Also people make mistakes, that doesn't mean that they can't become productive members of society given the right kind of support, but all of society needs to provide that support.

By the way your 'New World' vision has already happened may times before. Victorian England springs to mind and what a lovely place that seems to have been, worked out really well... no poor people their!

I fail to see how on an ever more overcrowded planet with finite resources we can ever survive as a species if we don't all pull together and help each other.

I must say this has really opened my mind to how some Americans think. I find it rather scary. If you think this way now what on earth are you going to do as a nation when China overtakes you as the world superpower.

By the way you never answered my question...

451. Comment #84152 by Comets on November 1, 2007 at 9:58 am

415. Comment #84048 by scooternyc - "No, life is not black/white, you say that because you fall into one of the categories of black/white and you're afraid someone will not help you in your situation."

Huh? Please tell me which category of black/white I fall into and what situation I'm afraid someone will not help me with?

For someone who does not believe in the supernatural you do seem to be rather fond of using your crystal ball to look into others lives.

Please explain.

15. AAI 07

Comment #84251 by Comets on November 1, 2007 at 2:38 pm

456. Comment #84171 by notsobad

NOTSOBAD – "That's quite a 'cold-hearted' and technical interpretation there. Basically, you say that people should take care of people who cannot take care of themselves. I generally agree and have never said otherwise. However, we need to discuss who are these less fortunate, how much help they need and how to operate this system to be as effective - corruption free and such - as possible.

Right so we basically agree (not sure about the 'cold-hearted' comment) but otherwise good.

NOTSOBAD – "Moreover, if we want to be honest with ourselves and follow the premise of 'clear thinking' we also need to discuss our motives."

Why? If people are helped what diffence do the motives make? If someone gives to charity because it makes them feel good, what's the problem? The charity is still getting the money.

NOTSOBAD – "Is welfare an act of genuine compassion or is this mostly a rational action (even if it's subconscious)?"

Again does it matter either way if ultimately it helps other people?

NOTSOBAD – "Many people have an attitude to consider people born/living in the same country more worthy than other people when it comes to helping others. Of course, these people don't have to be racists or bigots, but their actions suggest that they do care more about their fellow citizens. Why? Because it is rather a rational act than genuine compassion. Taking care of others in the same country you live brings obvious benefits and is often an effect of the Golden Rule, 'You scratch my back and I scratch yours', and other principles. It's quite lame then to see some many people in a 'clear-thinking oasis' making so many fallacious, pretentious and hypocritical statements.
There is an obvious line in our brains that allows only as much compassion. Some people here brag about how moral, humane and compassionate they are, but I doubt they only eat minimum food and buy only things they really need and give everything else to the 'less-fortunate'. I bought a new HDTV recently and I don't really need it. I am not scared to admit that I could have given the money to an orphanage or UNICEF or whoever else but did not. I am not scared to admit that I eat and drink some expensive food I don't really need. Some people here undoubtedly buy things they don't really need but still ride their high horse preaching others about compassion and how moral and humane they are. I do a lot of things to help others but I don't need to brag about them (except for one post when directly asked) and don't need to pretend that I am better than others."

Oh come on! So you're saying that if you believe in a welfare state you should 'only eat the minimum food and buy only things you really need and give everything else to the 'less-fortunate'. Where on this thread has anybody said anything of the kind? No No No (takes a deep breath!). I'm saying that paying SOME tax to have universal healthcare, education etc. is worth paying. How the system delivers is another matter, but as a basic principle it seems sound and sensible to me.

Quite frankly your comments about 'people riding their high horse preaching to others about compassion and how moral and humane they are' is bollocks.

You also seem to think that if you contribute to a welfare state that must mean you don't give a damn for the rest of the world and especially the developing world. Again rubbish. Prove it. I don't follow your logic.

Maybe welfare state is a dirty word to you. You see it as a drain on your pocket to let lazy wasters lay around getting pissed at your expense. But surely a system funded by society as a whole which empowers people who have fallen through the cracks to take responsibility for themselves and helps, when needed, is a good thing. That's what a good well run welfare state can deliver.

This all comes down to the fact that you and Scooter don't want to pay tax, pure and simple. You can't bear the thought that some of you money is taken from your control by the big bad government and used to try and help improve other peoples lives. You can argue until you're blue in the face about having the moral high ground, but at the end of the day it's all just a justification to not contribute to society in any structured way. Only if you feel like it.

16. AAI 07

Comment #84159 by Comets on November 1, 2007 at 10:14 am

452. Comment #84155 by Elutheria

Great quote Elutheria!

Reminds me that I must get round to reading A Christmas Carol again.

17. AAI 07

Comment #84156 by Comets on November 1, 2007 at 10:09 am

There is an editoral in this weeks New Scientist magazine which made me think of this discussion.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19626282.800-editorial-survival-of-the-nicest.html

I think the last paragraph about sums it up for me

"There is a lesson here for those who misinterpret "survival of the fittest" as a justification for unrestrained market forces: selfish people make their group less fit. So why not try altruism instead?"

18. AAI 07

Comment #84152 by Comets on November 1, 2007 at 9:58 am

415. Comment #84048 by scooternyc - "No, life is not black/white, you say that because you fall into one of the categories of black/white and you're afraid someone will not help you in your situation."

Huh? Please tell me which category of black/white I fall into and what situation I'm afraid someone will not help me with?

For someone who does not believe in the supernatural you do seem to be rather fond of using your crystal ball to look into others lives.

Please explain.

19. AAI 07

Comment #84150 by Comets on November 1, 2007 at 9:47 am

notsobad - "Compassion is a meaningless term since it's up to everybody to interpret it. Either explain what you mean by that or it's pointless to even mention it.
Comets added a dictionary entry, which, of course, does not include interpretation.
It's like saying 'justice' or 'you are not just' without explaining what you mean under justice and being just."

I gave you my interpretation in my post 365

"As for how I interpret compassion. On a wide social level I think compassion is best expressed by people that can afford it putting something into the social 'pot' through their taxes to help the less fortunate. How would you interpret it?"

As for you last few comments between you and briancoughlanworldcitizen you seem to be stamping your foot saying "Well people shouldn't have children they can't afford, they just shouldn't okay!" but the point is a minority of people DO have children they cannot support so saying they just shouldn't' is not very constructive. The question is what should we do in a compassionate (yes your favourite word again!) society, let them stave because it's their own fault or find some way to help them grow up to be productive members of society who can support themselves? Whatcha think?

20. AAI 07

Comment #83820 by Comets on October 31, 2007 at 12:03 pm

notsobad – "You obviously think that you are rich only if you are at least a millionaire. Some compassion and morals there."

You obviously don't know what I think. In no way do I think that you have to be 'at least a millionaire' to be rich, in fact it seems to me that's one of the problems – Too many people trying to be financially rich and consuming too much crap whilst not giving a damn about anybody else.

My point was that the important thing is for everybody to have a good basic standard of living where they can get healthcare and help if they need it regardless of how much money they have or don't have. What's so wrong with that?

As for how I interpret compassion. On a wide social level I think compassion is best expressed by people that can afford it putting something into the social pot through their taxes to help the less fortunate. How would you interpret it?

In your reply a little less of the 'You obviously think' please. By all means ask me what I think though.

21. AAI 07

Comment #83803 by Comets on October 31, 2007 at 10:21 am

notsobad - "Compassion is a meaningless term since it's up to everybody to interpret it. Either explain what you mean by that or it's pointless to even mention it."

A dictionary definition for you...

Compassion

noun
1. a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering
2. the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it

Seems to sum it up pretty well to me.

How do you define it?

22. AAI 07

Comment #83798 by Comets on October 31, 2007 at 10:13 am

notsobad - "Your logic: EU is socialist. EU is rich. Socialism makes you rich is so faulty you should see it already."

Your thinking seems to be that the best system is the one that will make you personally rich. It's got nothing to do with everybody being rich (How on earth can everybody be rich for goodness sake!), it's about a free and fare society where everybody has a good standard of living.

23. AAI 07

Comment #83794 by Comets on October 31, 2007 at 9:59 am

Careful there notsobad, you're starting to sound like a victim and cry baby.

Look, we all live on a planet with finite resources, we need some rules otherwise we've had it. As long as those rules are based on rational thinking AND compassion, I for one have no problem with that.

24. AAI 07

Comment #83746 by Comets on October 31, 2007 at 6:03 am

Scooter - you seem to have a very black and white view of the world. No grey areas for you!

I can agree that people need to take responsibility for their lives, but we don't live in bubbles and we're not robots. Unforeseen things happen. People make mistakes. When they do I'd rather live in a society that is civilised enough to help people where they need it. You are always going to get people who work the system, and claim to be victims when they're not, but that happens in all walks of life.

Taking your logic to the extreme if you have an accident and broke both your legs, rather than help I should just say "Sorry but I can't help. You made a bad choice stepping out into the road at that moment. You live with the consequences. What's that? You want to borrow my mobile phone to call an ambulance because you forgot to bring yours out today. No sorry, my friend, you need to take responsibility for yourself. If I gave you my phone to make that call I'd be making you a weak and useless victim."

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.

25. AAI 07

Comment #83723 by Comets on October 31, 2007 at 3:55 am

Scooter – "Here's what you want to hear: "take 'em all out back and shoot 'em"

Please tell me that is some kind of sick joke.

Or do you really believe that is what should be done with the weak and helpless?

Wouldn't it be better to use them for medical experiments, that way even they can contribute to society by providing the strong and powerful with better medicines?

Would you approve?

26. Merry Mithras

Comment #13635 by Comets on December 19, 2006 at 12:05 am

Lighten up paradigm667... it's a comedy show!

Jo Brand (the lady) is a Comedian, she's not asking for a debate!

27. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11642 by Comets on December 6, 2006 at 7:29 am

Well put Kingasaurus.

28. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11636 by Comets on December 6, 2006 at 7:00 am

Hi David Mathews,

So no afterlife for humans then.

But say us humans hadn't upset your god so much, would there be an afterlife then? Does your god even have a heaven?

I only ask because with your bleak outlook on the future of the human species I fail to see why you bother to invoke any kind of god at all.

29. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11632 by Comets on December 6, 2006 at 6:00 am

To David Matthews,

Do you believe in an afterlife?