1. Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?

Comment #204750 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Comment #204726 by dsijdavis

Sorry, I don't feel like typing a long story. Brian Dunning has done a nice job recapitulating.

The problem is that a lot of the psychology community disagrees with his findings. Some found that any results were rendered meaningless by insufficient controls. Some have problems with his analysis of the results, reaching a different conclusion based on the same data. Some found the sample population invalidated by selection biases, or the size of the sample inadequate for statistically useful results. Some found methodological flaws that tainted the participants' behavior. Let's look at some of these criticisms in closer detail.

* First, the issue of selection bias. Selection bias is where you choose your subjects in such a way that they are not truly representative of the general population. In this case, Zimbardo advertised to students to participate in an experiment about "prison life". Clearly, a large segment of the general population would be repulsed by such a concept, and you've got to have questions about anyone attracted to that idea. Thus, all applicants to the Stanford Prison Experiment were preselected for comfort with the idea of "prison life".

* Most of the Stanford guards did not exhibit any cruel or unusual behavior, often being friendly and doing favors for the prisoners. The most notorious guard, nicknamed John Wayne, explained that he was simply trying to emulate Strother Martin's character from Cool Hand Luke. Other analysts have found it difficult to support Zimbardo's conclusions, since the allegedly poisonous environment did not affect most participants, and the most notorious participant explained that his motivation came from a completely different source.

* Zimbardo himself was also criticized for actively participating in the experiment as one of the characters. He was the prison superintendent. Although he may have restrained himself from having any influence on the experiment, the fact that he put himself in the position of ultimate active authority over the guards' behavior calls this into question. Many designers of such experiments would summarily throw out such a study based on this alone.

* Some researchers have also questioned why Zimbardo neglected the effect of individual personalities, instead generally attributing all behavior to the prison environment. How did John Wayne's behavior as a guard compare to his behavior outside the experiment? Was he generally a friendly guy, or might he already have been a royal jerk? We don't know, so there was insufficient data to conclude that his behavior was changed by the experiment.

* The statistical validity of the sample of participants, 24 male Stanford students of about the same age, has been called into question as being too small and restrictive to be generally applicable to the population at large.

* I have one other issue with Zimbardo's results that I didn't find anyone else raising, and it goes back to my 15-point checklist in Skeptoid #37, How to Spot Pseudoscience. Zimbardo has dedicated much of his career to the promotion of the idea that bad environments drive bad behavior. I tend to be cautious of claims coming from sources dedicated to promoting them. The scientific method starts with a null hypothesis, not with a preconceived notion to justify; and that process invariably produces data that do not support the conclusion, and theories tend to change over time as a result. By my analysis, Zimbardo appears to be cherrypicking his results to justify the same conclusion that he has been promoting throughout his career. This doesn't make him wrong, it just gives me cause for skepticism.

* Finally, It's worth mentioning that by today's standards, the Stanford Prison Experiment was unethical and could never be performed in the United States. However, this point is not relevant to the validity of the results, and in any event, it was perfectly legal at the time.

Dr. Zimbardo and the Stanford Experiment came into the news again in 2004, following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. American prison guards were accused of cruelty to Iraqi prisoners â€" the great Naked Human Pyramidgate scandal. A number of soldiers and senior officers were court martialed and imprisoned or demoted. The prosecutors claimed that "a few bad apples" were responsible. The defense disagreed, and called in Dr. Zimbardo as an expert witness to testify that it was the environment that was responsible, not the individuals. "You can't be a sweet cucumber in a vinegar barrel," he famously said. The court disagreed, finding (rightly, as many would say) that individuals must be held accountable for their own actions, and the few bad apples went to jail. Dr. Zimbardo then wrote the book The Lucifer Effect, drawing further parallels between his prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib scandal.

2. Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?

Comment #204706 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Comment #204696 by Notcrowingbutyawning

Well, it seems that psychology and experimental psychology have, over the years, been permeated by much pseudo-science -resulting in bogus experiments validating preposterous notions and unacceptable cover-ups of scientific malpractice.

Incredibly, some people in that field would still lead us to believe in the efficacy of egregious nonsense like lie-detecting machines or rorschach inkblot tests.

3. Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?

Comment #204688 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Was this experiment replicated and peer-reviewed?

It eerily reminds of the Zimbardo experiment, which has been exposed as fraudulent.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #204553 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 7:33 am

Godd morning/afternoon/evening, all.

Happy cretinist hunt.

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #204464 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 3:31 am

Comment #204359 by txpiper

I would say yes. There are some things that are a matter of perspective. For instance, the Levitical dietary laws groups bats with the "fowls" that are not suitable to eat, but I don't see that as a gross taxonomy error. What do you have in mind?

6. Christians challenge teaching of evolution

Comment #204458 by decius on July 5, 2008 at 3:09 am

"We believe that..."

Well, that settles it, then.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #204280 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 3:07 pm

txpiper,

I have a single question for you.

Do you think the bible is inerrant in all its descriptions of nature? In other words, is there no single error or inaccuracy in its accounts of the natural world?

8. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204259 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Donald,

I think you should read both volumes. Extrapolating from the limited quotes that I provided, albeit verbatim, may be misleading.

For instance, Stenger bases his case on the No Boundary Model of Hartle and Hawking, where the universe has no beginning or end in space and time but has tunneled through chaos at the Planck time from a previously existing universe.
Therefore, several assumptions and axioms which may be valid in the classic big-bang model, such as the beginning of time itself, are not part of Stenger's scenario.

I don't know how the direction of time is affected in the aforesaid model, because I didn't read The Comprehensible Cosmos - being it too technical for me, but certainly not for you.

9. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #204194 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 11:13 am

There is an intrinsic risk in putting into orbit large amounts of fissile material, and the Nuclear Pulse Propulsion is very costly. Not really the way to go at the moment, considered the better alternatives.
It was a great idea back in the 50s-60s, obsolete now.

10. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204182 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 10:13 am

Comment #204181 by Steve Zara

I agree completely.

Also, Stenger admits to not being mainstream, for instance here:

"My views on this
particular issue are not recognized by a consensus of physicists,
although I insist that the science I have used is well established
and conventional. I am proposing no new physics or cosmology
but merely providing an interpretation of established knowledge
in those fields as it bears on the question of the origin of physical
law, a question few physicists ever ponder."

11. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204174 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 9:31 am

A side-note, since I can't participate in any helpful manner at this level of discourse.

Here we are, poking holes and finding weaknesses in the work of an important author for "our side".

Could you imagine a forum of theists doing likewise on some pivotal apologetics? :)

12. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204132 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 8:12 am

Comment #204127 by Oystein Elgaroy

Indeed, he reiterates it in the Failed Hypothesis.

We have seen that the origin and the operation of the universe do not
require any violations of laws of physics. This probably will come as
a surprise to the layperson who may have heard otherwise from the
pulpit or the media. However, the scientifically savvy believer might
concede this point for the sake of argument and then retort, "Okay,
then where did the laws of physics come from?" The common belief
is that they had to come from somewhere outside the universe. But
that is not a demonstrable fact. There is no reason why the laws of
physics cannot have come from within the universe itself.
Physicists invent mathematical models to describe their
observations of the world. These models contain certain general
principles that have been traditionally called "laws" because of
the common belief that these are rules that actually govern the
universe the way civil laws govern nations. However, as I showed
in my previous book, The Comprehensible Cosmos, the most funda-
mental laws of physics are not restrictions on the behavior of
matter. Rather they are restrictions on the way physicists may
describe that behavior.
25
In order for any principle of nature we write down to be
objective and universal, it must be formulated in such a way that
it does not depend on the point of view of any particular
observer. The principle must be true for all point of views, from
every "frame of reference." And so, for example, no objective law
can depend on a special moment in time or a position in space
that may be singled out by some preferred observer. Suppose I were to formulate a law that said that all objects
move naturally toward me. That would not be very objective. But
this was precisely what people once thought�"that Earth was the
center of the universe and the natural motion of bodies was
toward Earth. The Copernican revolution showed this was wrong
and was the first step in the gradual realization of scientists that
their laws must not depend on frame of reference.
In 1918 mathematician Emmy Noether proved that the most
important physical laws of all�"conservation of energy, linear
momentum, and angular momentum�"will automatically appear
in any model that does not single out a special moment in time,
position in space, and direction in space.
26
Later it was realized that
Einstein's special theory of relativity follows if we do not single out
any special direction in four-dimensional space-time.

These properties of space-time are called symmetries.

13. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204125 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 7:52 am

Comment #204120 by Steve Zara

the symmetries could have been broken differently, perhaps.

14. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204115 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 7:03 am

Comment #204111 by Steve Zara
I think his point is that once symmetry breaking explains the origin of the law of physics, the whole concept of fine-tuning becomes redundant.
He also exposes it as vacuous in several other ways.
I see what you mean with the "apart from when it isn't symmetrical" objection, but it seems to me that he accounts also for that scenario.
Do you have his book with you?

15. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204109 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #204106 by Oystein Elgaroy

It would be interesting to email Stenger your scepticism about the effectiveness of his argument. Do you mind if I do that? Imagine if we could get the old sage himself to comment in this thread. :)

16. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204101 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 6:24 am

Steve,

they state it here quite clearly, among other places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking

17. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204100 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 6:23 am

Oystein,

thanks.

You are a great resource, being so familiar with the two interpretations of reality. :)

18. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #204089 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 5:46 am

Comment #204081 by Steve Zara

I am hopeless to understand the math behind this, but wouldn't Higgs be enough to prove at least spontaneous symmetry breaking in the SM?
And wouldn't this be the final nail in the coffin of theism/deism?

As Vic Stenger puts it:

These properties of space-time are called symmetries. For
example, the rotational symmetry of a sphere is a result of the
sphere singling out no particular direction in space. The four
space-time symmetries described above are just the natural sym-
metries of a universe with no matter, that is, a void. They are just
what they should be if the universe appeared from an initial state
in which there was no matterâ€"from nothing.
Other laws of physics, such as conservation of electric charge
and the various force laws, arise from the generalization of space-
time symmetries to the abstract spaces physicists use in their
mathematic models. This generalization is called gauge invari-
ance, which is likened to a principle I more descriptively refer to
as point-of-view invariance.
The mathematical formulations of these models (which are
provided in The Comprehensible Cosmos) must reflect this require-
ment if they are to be objective and universal. Surprisingly, when
this is done, most of the familiar laws of physics appear naturally.
Those that are not immediately obvious can be seen to plausibly
arise by a process, mentioned in chapter 2, known as spontaneous
symmetry breaking.
If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time,
then where did that empty space-time come from? Why is there
something rather than nothing? This question is often the last
recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of God
from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other argu-
ments fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "philosophy's cen-
tral, and most perplexing, question." His simple (but book-
length) answer: "There has to be something."
28
Clearly many conceptual problems are associated with this
question. How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties?
If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist
claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there God rather
than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," why should
nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact,
we can give a plausible scientific reason based on our best current
knowledge of physics and cosmology that something is more nat-
ural than nothing!
In chapter 2 we saw how nature is capable of building com-
plex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity
begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the
beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the
direct freezing of water vapor in the atmosphere. Our experience
tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into
drops of liquid water that exhibit far less structure. But that is only
because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment,
where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler
liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake.
In an environment where the ambient temperature is well
below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far
from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water
vapor would readily crystallize into complex, asymmetric struc-
tures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain
intact until cosmic rays tore them apart.
This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles
are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo sponta-
neous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy.
Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very
stable. It would likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to
something more complicated, like a universe containing matter.
The transition of nothing-to-something is a natural one, not
requiring any agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has
put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something
rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."
29
In the nonboundary scenario for the natural origin of the uni-
verse I mentioned earlier, the probability for there being some-
thing rather than nothing actually can be calculated; it is over 60
percent.
30
In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than
nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural interventionâ€"
not a full one. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the
universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be main-
tained. The fact that we have something is just what we would
expect if there is no God.

19. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203921 by decius on July 4, 2008 at 12:19 am

decius, you just made that up, didn't you? ;)

20. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203856 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 8:46 pm

steveroot,

that is generally correct for single engine crafts.
A combination of HDLT and rockets would considerably reduce deceleration time. Gravity and atmosphere drag are other options.

21. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203776 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 2:38 pm

I prefer this place.

http://tinyurl.com/5lgtvs

22. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #203770 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 2:29 pm

I would try and give some kind of reference to it on Google Earth, but

23. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203729 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Thank you too, Steve. I daily learn something from you.

24. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203716 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Steve,

I agree that propulsion to deep space needs a boost, both practically and figuratively.

However, the Helicon Double Layer Thruster could already be deployed after that it was successfully tested on orbiting satellites.
To give you an idea, a trip to Mars could last as little as three months at the engine's full potential.

If I am extrapolating correctly, one way to Jupiter's system would be reduced to approximately an year and a half.
Unless all other aspects of future missions are already planned, we are running the risk of having a functional propulsion system and nowhere to go.

25. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203647 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 9:52 am

In my opinion we are misdirecting a bit our efforts.
Granted that Mars is the natural backyard were to look in, there are far more interesting places in the solar system which we haven't properly investigated or not investigated at all.

Don't get me wrong, I would multiply our investments on Mars as well, but given the fact that budgets are tightening and huge wastes are perpetrated on the space station, I'd rather use those funds to explore Europa and Titan.

Titan for instance is an extremely dynamic world, with a mixture of dense atmosphere and low gravity.
Low-power drones or kites could stay aloft for years, just with the scarce solar energy available, and a large enough fleet could conduct hundreds of experiments continuously.

Suitable landing sites could be thus located for later missions capable of returning data of much greater interest than phoenix'.

26. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203637 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 9:24 am

Ridelo,

if you are referring to the Phoenix mission, its objective doesn't include looking for life, but to confirm the presence of water at the arctic region, to run a series of experiments on the soil, and to monitor the local weather.

The last mission which went to Mars with the official objective to look for signs of microbial life was Viking 2.

These things get distorted by the press in its quest for sensationalism.

27. Did newborn Earth harbour life?

Comment #203620 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 8:53 am

Carbon is very common in the universe and even produced by stars. Its light isotopes could be concentrated by geological or volcanic processes not yet understood. The hypothesis in this article seems a bit far-fetched to me.

28. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203586 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 7:53 am

irate_atheist

You may be right, I never heard of this Hancock super-hero. I should have asked for evidence.

29. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203576 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 7:32 am

muslimlady,

Thanks, but I'd rather have a conversation with rational people than with subscribers to a bronze age world-view.

And before you brand me a racist, my comment cuts across the spectrum of the abrahamic religions, even though Islam is particularly backward in all respects.

By the way, there is no need for articles or a superhero movie plot to "make muslims look bad", as they constantly do all what is in their power to impose their narrow set of beliefs on others, and we certainly don't form our opinions on such paltry accounts.


The only correlation that jumps to mind is that both Hancock and Allah are fictional characters gifted with super-powers.


We realise that some muslims are liberal and not all are equal, but the merit goes to the bit of secularism that has permeated through. Religions are to be judged by their tenets, teachings and creed, and by the actions that they elicit on the believers.

Edited for clarity.

30. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #203570 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 7:16 am

Steve,

your opponent is a raving lunatic with delusions of grandeur.

Edit- I haven't yet read the debate, but the article you linked is chilling in its dementedness.

31. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203509 by decius on July 3, 2008 at 3:33 am

LOL

It takes baws, though, to roam the web pretending to be a QM expert, while you have an idiocy trophy named after yourself.
We have to give him that.

Edit- milli-Hovinds is priceless.

32. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203354 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 5:25 pm

ggab

al rawandi is a rational guy with strong but informed personal views, who allows himself to be convinced by good evidence. His rhetorical style is blunt and he may pass for an arse, but he is not.
And yes, he is funny.

33. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203343 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 4:37 pm

No need to apologise, thanks.

However, I didn't see any racist remark being landed by anyone.

Edit- I have seen what you mean now. The "fucking arabs" bit, probably. It seems more like an outburst of rage toward backwardness than anything really racist.

34. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203332 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Vinelectric,

are you denying that apostasy is a capital crime in Saudi Arabia?

How is pointing it out "racist"?

35. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203328 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Goldy,

please, don't take everything I say literally. It was tongue-in-cheek bitterness directed toward the treatment that atheists are subjected to in parts of the Arab world.
I know some of them too, and they are scared to death to speak out.

And, I am a euro as well.

36. Muslims outraged at police advert featuring cute puppy sitting in policeman's hat

Comment #203320 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Vinelectric,

I am glad to learn that there is such thing as an Arab atheist left. Last time that I checked they were being executed for apostasy.
You just can't imagine my elation at these good news.

Given such paradigm shift, I trust that Saudi Arabia has finally agreed to adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and join the rest of the civilised world, too.

This is a great day in history.

Thanks

37. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #203056 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 10:34 am

al

Yes, I agree. It was a bad solution to a terrible problem, which had been left to turn cancerous, almost totally ignored.
At the same time the bourgeoisie was thriving. Imagine the resentment of the dispossessed and the labourers that powered the sweatshops and factories without being rewarded the means to provide for their own families.

38. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #203054 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 10:26 am

al rawandi

one more thing.
Radical ideas like Marx's germinate and propagate precisely in response to widespread social distress.
People won't be arsed into conspiring and revolting if allowed to moderately prosper.

39. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #203050 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 10:01 am

al rawandi,


I thought Marx chiefly advocated the seizing by the proletariat of the means of production, a measure which he believed would have benefited everyone in the long run, by rendering the system less vulnerable to periodic crisis, and improving inter-class relationship.

As the urban space wasn't enough to support the booming city populations, a re-development of previously abandoned areas in the country-side was clearly not too bad an idea, even though I am not sure that this was proposed by him or others.
In any case, it isn't quite the same as a return to an agrarian society.

Also, the need for social reforms, public sanitation, and housing should be examined on its own merit.

40. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #203044 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 9:37 am

Comment #203037 by epeeist

Thx, marked down.

41. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #203030 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 9:12 am

al rawandi,

to understand Marx's analysis and what kind of social conditions prompted it, I think Dickens offers the best snapshots of Victorian squalor. At least you can be sure that there is no political agenda in his writing.

I am not sure that "forcing populations out of urban areas" was ever advocated in the strongly negative sense that you imply, probably equating it to Stalin's policies of resettlement.

There was an urge to provide a large number of dispossessed with basic hygienic conditions and living space, which often translated into bring people out of filthy cellars where they lived literally by the hundreds.
It was also a matter of public health, as you can imagine.

Having said that, bear in mind that I take a very dim view of socialism and communism, but I see no wrong with certain forms of social democracy.

42. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203012 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 8:40 am

Man, I went to check PZ's dungeon, he takes quite a dim view of O'Brien.

CRIME- Stupidity, Stupidity, Stupidity, Stupidity, Trolling, Wanking (Wanking Making self-congratulary comments intended only to give an impression of your importance or intelligence.)

SENTENCE- Automatically Junked

COMMENTS- This fellow has an awesome reputation all over the web as one of the dumbest commenters ever. I concur. Has a stupid blog, too. Banned at numerous sites. Mocked everywhere.

43. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #203007 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 8:31 am

Has O'Brien switched from entertaining us with his Quacktum Mechanics to cracking us up with a meatier, but equally fallacious, historical revisionism?

44. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202963 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 7:21 am

Robertroll,

you are right, I don't understand QM and I have no problems admitting it, contrary to your pretentious attitude that you do.

Also, I have no interest in reading the brainfarts of the likes of Craig Lane. I had the misfortune to assist to two debates with him, and I am still bored now, years later.

What is clear, though, through my perfunctory reading of this thread, is that you are incapable and unwilling to answer the legitimate questions that people truly knowledgeable in the field of QM and philosophy (like epeeist and Steven Zara) are posing to you.

In other words, sir, you are a fraud and a liar.

45. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202940 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 7:00 am

Robert O'Brien,

Specious argument= Ontological argument

Apologist= Craig

Hard fact= Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and a few dozen more that you ducked

Do you need also a drawing, or would this suffice?

46. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202854 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 4:05 am

Steve,

you are very confused and these concepts fly way above your head.
Have you then forgotten what He said?

I did not come to bring peace…but a SWORD

47. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202820 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 3:19 am

Steve,

I have a book on fencing in my library, and once I even moved it to table in order to dust off the shelves.

This makes me a greater authority than you, and I can tell you without shade of doubt that epeeist's parrying technique is spotless.

Furthermore, I checked the Christian Fencers site: http://hometown.aol.com/brucesikes/christianfencers.html

Here is what they have to say:

...fencers who are Christians can show and tell other people about our faith. We do that in a variety of ways; wearing our t-shirts to tournaments, conducting fencing demonstrations, doing free fencing camps/lessons for kids and adults who can't pay, exhibiting good sportsmanship and generally helping people anyway we can, including lending a kind ear to problems and praying for their solutions.

48. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202811 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 2:59 am

epeeist,

I totally agree with you about Marx, and I will check those links. BTW, "comrade" was just a joke, I hope that it didn't offend you.

I suppose that we are both in favour of some degree of social equality, without being socialists or even social-democrats in the sense of followers of a party ideology of sort.

Again, I agree with your distaste for power blocs.

Cheers

49. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #202801 by decius on July 2, 2008 at 2:33 am

How pathetic is O'brien caught ignoring a hard fact contradicting his specious arguments? Instead of studying the relevant physics, he runs to consult what spin some apologist has come out with. The best part is that he doesn't even understand that the apologist has in fact produced nothing but a word game.

50. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #202561 by decius on July 1, 2008 at 3:54 pm

I am a school teacher...

If one and I believe many who read my logical arguments and your books will conclude that who is ignorant.