1. Kenneth Miller on Colbert Report

Comment #195391 by 3legcat on June 18, 2008 at 6:48 am

dhamma said

It's really annoying such an intelligent person as Kenneth cannot give up all his ridiculous beliefs.

why annoying? isn't freedom of thought more enjoyable than reassurance?

frankus said

I think Ken Miler does not believe in a non-interfering god. He is a Catholic so his god interferes in human affairs and He had a purpose in mind when He set creation in motion.
I think there is no evidence for the interfering god who designed the universe as it is so we could come about and worship Him.

at a debate held in NH last year (between him and some discovery institute dudes) ken miller was asked about gould's thought experiment of rewinding evolutionary history and playing it over again and ken argued that big brained self conscious primates would be an extremely unlikely species. so he is clearly in the camp of unguided evolution based on his understanding of the evidence. people like miller, collins and wolpe place a very strong emphasis on the difference between knowledge and belief. you and i don't see this sharp distinction, but then we have no need to. perhaps?

2. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #191084 by 3legcat on June 10, 2008 at 7:39 am

if bill maher were funny, he would be a comedian

3. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #183003 by 3legcat on May 21, 2008 at 7:54 am

Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial of 2005 (in which Judge John E. Jones III barred intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania public school district's science classes), takes the classic Darwinian "grandeur in this view of life" approach. God is behind it all.

He rejects claims that the God hypothesis makes no sense, stating that "... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."

the above quote is the entirety of ken miller in this article.

surfdude, where do you find ken miller "lumping all disbelievers" in those statements?

What I was pointing out was that the above statement is a red herring because almost no-one disbelieves for this reason.

almost no one disbelieves because they find assertions made in holy books to be contradictory of each other, contradicted by the actions of its strongest believers, as well as self contradictory and contradicted by scientific evidence? really? do have some evidence of this? seems to me that these are some of the primary considerations of dawkins, harris and especially hitchens.

"Hence his pathological cognitive dissonance"

have you read ken miller's book? attended some of his lectures? met him? he is hardly pathological. brown univeristy cell biologist ken miller takes notice that science rightly can only tell us about the natural universe and that some questions are out of reach of empirical testing, that drawing the conclusion "that absence of evidence, is evidence of absence" is not a scientific claim. further more he likes to quote aquinas who held that beliefs are subject to revision in the light of new evidence including religious beliefs. that is hardly "cognitive dissonance".

you and i do not share ken miller's beliefs, but that does not make him some kind of nutcase or ignorant of the issues.

4. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182463 by 3legcat on May 20, 2008 at 7:33 am

surfdude

Miller's error is in setting us up with the red herring of equating religion with belief in god(s).

actually ken miller was making the exact opposite point, that religions are man made and thus are fallible. that "organized(by humans) religions" have problems doesn't preclude belief in god.

5. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182459 by 3legcat on May 20, 2008 at 7:25 am

huzonfirst

Shermer has always been weak on atheism, somehow swallowing the definition of an atheist as someone who "believes" there is no god.

It's someone who has no supernatural beliefs, Michael - period!

wikipedia

Philosophers such as Antony Flew[32] and Michael Martin[21] have contrasted strong (positive) atheism with weak (negative) atheism. Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Weak atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a weak or a strong atheist.[33] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent; however, the equivalent terms negative and positive atheism have been used in the philosophical literature[32] and (in a slightly different sense) in Catholic apologetics.[34] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists.

despite your assertions otherwise, mr shermer seems to have the accepted definitions correct.

6. God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital

Comment #182091 by 3legcat on May 19, 2008 at 8:06 am

listen to it here

http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?cn=aei&c=10162&s=20271&e=9464&&espmt=2

listening to the Q&A first

shermer "i do not believe in god" & "i am a militant agnostic, i can't know and you can't know"

i like shermer a lot.

7. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #177544 by 3legcat on May 9, 2008 at 9:20 am

which bothers me more; the idea that Ken Miller really is a Catholic, or that maybe he just says he's a Catholic

i read his book (finding darwin's god), attended a couple of lectures, met him and spoke with him briefly a couple of times, and now my daughter goes to brown and will have ken miller as a prof. (when he returns from sabbatical).

he really is a believer, an un-compartmentalized believer. think aquinas type catholic. ie "if your solid evidence contradicts your beliefs then adjust your beliefs to fit the evidence because god is not a deceiver" or in other words ken miller would say 'unguided evolution is clearly true, therefore evolution is creation, because god does not deceive'. even when pressed into rewinding history and then running the tape forward (ala steve gould) miller agrees humans are an unlikely outcome, so he gets it, he merely makes a greater distinction between knowledge and belief than perhaps i do. he does have me thinking though...

8. CEAI Action Alert for Science Teachers

Comment #154391 by 3legcat on April 3, 2008 at 7:05 am

i am grateful for the creationists. they have been extremely helpful, their short sighted theology and ham handed tactics have given public science just the boost it needed, when it needed it most.

thank you guys really i mean it, thanks for everything, most especially Dover.

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

Comment #153956 by 3legcat on April 2, 2008 at 9:09 am

"9/11 is important in that it symbolizes a greater threat to our way of life"

perceived threat or real threat? what do you mean by "way of life" standard of living or relative liberty?

"doesn't render the deaths from terrorism irrelevant"

no one thinks they are. i was speculating about proportionality of response.

"So people get fired up over terrorism because it isn't a product of our natural environment the way cars and bathtubs are"

death by DWI is not natural environment, no one ever got elected president fighting a war on domestic violence. clearly tribalism is a factor in our reaction to 9/11 and merely because it is an obvious factor doesn't make it illegitimate, just recognisable.

"No one beats someone to death with a bathtub."

if that guy doesn't take a shower soon, there will be at least one.

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

Comment #153934 by 3legcat on April 2, 2008 at 8:28 am

I wonder why the cartoons elicited more of a reaction

perhaps, because the cartoons were an assault on mohamed while fitna is a criticism of scripture. lots of xtians identify with jesus while not having any idea what he is said to have said in the gospels, or IOW hero worship is easier and more powerful than dogma, heros are viscerally bonded.

and

the cartoons appeared in newspapers, formal news organizations have the appearance of formal endorsement of its population, while fitna is not yet associated with any tribe.

why does the US care deeply about 9/11? it isn't the number of dead, that happens all the time (in bathtubs, cars, murders etc.) it is death by the other team that fires us up.
(myself included)

11. Supreme Court to consider Ten Commandments vs. 'Seven Aphorisms'

Comment #153874 by 3legcat on April 2, 2008 at 7:03 am

they have a gift shop!

http://www.cafepress.com/summum/3188915

12. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #124062 by 3legcat on February 8, 2008 at 9:09 am

"ok let's all join hands around the pizza in a box"

13. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107217 by 3legcat on January 4, 2008 at 9:29 am

quill said

You guys, I'm sure, would both have said the same things about George Bush in 2000 (and again in 2004). Unfortunately, those campaigns showed us that a candidate can actually win with nothing but evangelicals,

overstated and over simplified, GWB had a lot more support than merely evangelicals, more importantly the democrats ran terrible uninspired candidates that bored independents into staying home, al gore and john kerry both tried to assume their way passed the election. hillary is trying to do the same. boring and dull, can anyone remember even what her speech was about last night? do you remember anything you can quote from it? i remember edwards', obama's and huckabee's, but not hillary's.

Dismissing Huckabee's popularity as a phenomenon exclusive to the redneck states is a mistake.

agreed, he is well spoken understandable and very likable, these things sell well in the NE too. plus many of us want to move to a consumption based tax system which makes huckabee and paul interesting in NH.

The national electorate is stupid and uninformed, and will vote for whichever candidate they would most like to "drink a beer with".

gee, character assessment (drink a beer with) is my first and last vetting tool, i am stupid, however i don't consider myself uninformed, having watched and re watched all the debates on both sides and having spent some time on research of each candidates. i have found things i like from mike huckabee, ron paul, joe biden(out), john mccain, hillary clinton, barrack obama, i have also found things i don't like, and then i remember that the person is being elected president, not king and maybe positions are secondary to character. given my personal politics i should favor rudy, but i just can't, i don't like him just as soon as he opens his mouth. perhaps you might reconsider the complexity of the decision tree involved here.

lastly for those of you who think you understand america, i think perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to knee jerk to sound bites. when it really mattered: terri schiavo's wishes were carried out, intelligent design lost, condoms are legal, choice is still law, civil unions are becoming legal, republicans now favor "don't ask don't tell" and creationism lost 20 years ago despite the national academy of science's tardy official statement yesterday.

america bashing is easy but unsatisfyingly so

14. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101958 by 3legcat on December 21, 2007 at 9:08 am

DNAtheist

it may have been just dumb luck, i suspect that the theists agreed to come and discuss their faiths in a positive way and figured they might have to debate the lone atheist on the usual deist type arguments. but the leader of the seminar series (hosted by the local university) decided to ask the atheist to postpone so that she would not be the focus of the discussion. that left the various beliefs with only each other to answer the question of "who is right and how do you know it", which unsurprisingly, turned up exactly what you would expect if they are all man made.

this one moment made a much larger impression upon my wife regarding her faith than any argument i have ever made in 23 years.

15. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101932 by 3legcat on December 21, 2007 at 7:38 am

As ever, though, when it comes to discrediting religion, the efforts of atheist polemicists and fantasists were no match for the behaviour of believers themselves

story time

my wife is a high school teacher, she and my oldest daughter are progressive/moderate/loose christians, they supervise a weekly seminar on various topics, two weeks ago, the topic was religion, the speakers included a catholic, an evangelist, a muslim, a jew, and a buddist, (the atheist was asked to wait for another time so as to not dominate the discussion).

that night at dinner, both my wife and daughter admitted to me that the debate between the faiths made all the faiths all look implausible and their individual faith was seriously shaken. they are serious doubters now. they did not like the "i am saved, but you are not" arguments.

i am now convinced that the best strategy is to back out of the argument, and let the various faiths disprove each other. we should be encouraging debates between faiths, not faith vs non faith, that is how to get to the moderates.

16. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101923 by 3legcat on December 21, 2007 at 7:17 am

so life is a pass/fail attendance class, the prof never shows it wouldn't be a test if he did.

17. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101909 by 3legcat on December 21, 2007 at 6:26 am

why would anyone let this guy near their children?

oh wait, he said jesus, never mind.

in any other context it would be abuse, say jesus a couple of times and parents let their children be terrorised by a crazed self hating loon.

with god, all is possible.


i wonder just how uncomfortable this guy makes the priests, what can they say to him or to the parents? they are stuck with him i guess.

18. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101513 by 3legcat on December 20, 2007 at 1:13 pm

its No. 2 figure, Ayman al-Zawahiri

was he hit in the forehead with a coke bottle from the sky?

narwhal?

19. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99729 by 3legcat on December 17, 2007 at 12:36 pm

thanks Josh, well done too,

my suggestion for episode II: Lawrence Krauss, Micheal Shermer, PZ Myer and Jennifer Michael Hecht

i enjoyed this format, i will have a chilled Reposado and my smoke outdoors, thank you.

and though no one asked me, i don't want the churchs empty on sundays, i'll take this beaten and demoralized tribe of soft embarrassed believers over most of the likely alternatives, we tribalize easily over almost any dumb crap. (rwanda, taliban, 911 truthers, dane cook fans etc...) further more who wants to be in a majority anyway. why would anyone want joel olsteen or garth brooks on our side?

hey i did it! i am a tiny minority in a tiny minority! alright! * do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight, git down tonight! *




merry christmas

20. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98201 by 3legcat on December 13, 2007 at 8:52 am

I'm really not sure what this declaration is supposed to achieve. It seems to be an entirely vacuuous and pointless endeavour.

and yet by comparison this bill is congress's shining moment of achievement

21. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97097 by 3legcat on December 11, 2007 at 12:00 pm

i just scan for stalin now

crimini

22. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97094 by 3legcat on December 11, 2007 at 11:53 am

That's not My Atheism!

23. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97091 by 3legcat on December 11, 2007 at 11:51 am

fickle said:

What I hate about this old arguement is that no one ever explains why I should care if Stalin or Hitler were athiests. What difference would that make to my morality?

i believe the response goes like this: some (most?) atheists want religion to go away, where that has been tried by governments it has failed and led to mass murder. some atheists ask us to imagine a world without religion which strongly implies that non belief itself is a form of superior morality or at least leads to better actions. again, stalin's lack of belief was of no help to him therefore lack of belief does not lead to better behavior and/or maybe worse. on why it matters to your morality it goes back to the argument of "without god all is permissible"/moral relativism shtick

that is why our believer brothers/sisters think it matters. that and they fear an international secular/atheist "religion" is bent on removing christianity by force, ie. bill o'reilly

24. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96963 by 3legcat on December 11, 2007 at 7:00 am

he is rather adorable

25. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96960 by 3legcat on December 11, 2007 at 6:53 am

the most that can be said of stalin, mao etc.. is that their non belief was of no help. their non belief did not improve them.

we will be facing this argument for as long as we assert the opposite.

26. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94693 by 3legcat on December 6, 2007 at 9:16 am

some preacher dude is singing now....cripes, this whole thing has just gone embarrassing, now what do i call myself at cocktail parties?

27. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94691 by 3legcat on December 6, 2007 at 9:12 am

devolve said "Does Scott Atran seem awfully smug and self-satisfied every time he asks a question from the audience, or is it just my perception?
"

i find mr atran fascinating, but there is little doubt his personal style is very off putting, it stops me from buying his books though it shouldn't

28. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94689 by 3legcat on December 6, 2007 at 9:09 am

aj rae;

Shermer started shouting at Harold Kroto I thought unjustifiably, against a point he never tried to make and fully accepted.

i disagree, kroto was ranting sweeping statements about tempelton, and shermer gave a valid well publicized counter example, this is how science/ valid debate is done, yes?

29. AAI 07

Comment #84527 by 3legcat on November 2, 2007 at 9:16 am

"especially if carried out at a distance"

oh and just tie up one loose end, "arms length" doesn't have anything to do with physical distance, it is a metaphor that means lack of coercion.

take care

30. AAI 07

Comment #84525 by 3legcat on November 2, 2007 at 9:09 am

There is something to that alright. Still though, I bet he ensured they had an excellent education, good nutrition and wall to wall health care. If every child in the US had that, well, it'd be Sweden with guns:-)

;)

he does (of course)

as you know Brian, i am not arguing for the absolute forms of social policy from either side of this debate, but rather take the best from both, course not much fun in debating that.

i gotta go have a great weekend, all!

31. AAI 07

Comment #84519 by 3legcat on November 2, 2007 at 8:44 am

"Why should the well-off be deprived of the enriching and bracing character building experience of abject poverty? Merely because of the lottery of birth? It hardly seems fair."

actually this has been a trend amongst the wealthy for some time now, a friend of mine will not pass along his successful business to his children for this very reason, he loves his daughters deeply, supports them and doesn't want to rob them of a fulfilling life by providing an easy path and an easy way out. he often mentions how many spoiled children end up dead too early.

the libertarian in me says it should be his choice either way.

32. AAI 07

Comment #84518 by 3legcat on November 2, 2007 at 8:29 am

bonzai, i copy and pasted my quotes, but i certainly don't wish to take anyone out of context, if i have then my apologies. as far as the "hard work is always rewarded with riches" myth goes, i agree, but i don't think that was his point.

"Remuneration is not a function of contribution to society"

agreed

Nassim Nicholas Taleb makes this point pretty convincingly in The Black Swan, of course he goes further to argue that skill is less important than luck and i agree there as well.

33. AAI 07

Comment #84514 by 3legcat on November 2, 2007 at 8:18 am

good point bonzai, but do you think it follows that all transactions are inherently immoral because one party is "disadvantaged" relative to the other?

btw, i agree that this thread has left the tracks sometime ago, perhaps this not the time or place...

34. AAI 07

Comment #84510 by 3legcat on November 2, 2007 at 8:05 am

"Post your credit card details on an unsecure website and let's see"

the difference is consent, without consent it is a crime, with consent it is a free act.

35. AAI 07

Comment #84509 by 3legcat on November 2, 2007 at 7:59 am

i answered your question on inheritance, i assumed you asked it for a reason, now the ball is in your court, what was your point in asking it?

you declared "profit" a crime by fiat and then claimed your fiat was not mere declaration, but "a fact", again without evidence or argument.

please explain how a bilateral arms length transaction is a crime? and how its criminal nature is a fact and not your opinion?

36. AAI 07

Comment #84503 by 3legcat on November 2, 2007 at 7:37 am

wealth in the form of rent, interest and profits is legalised robbery.

an arms length transaction is not robbery, unless words have no meaning.

That is a statement of fact, not a moral judgment

again, do words have meanings? declaring "rent" etc. a crime isn't a "moral judgement"?

37. AAI 07

Comment #84501 by 3legcat on November 2, 2007 at 7:29 am

NMcC

buy a BMW and not a Honda ....follow that thought through to its logical conclusion....loads of space for the kids, brilliant air conditioning, safety considerations, great music system, comfort considerations, reliability etc..etc.. buying the Honda would have been the emotional choice

yikes

Should parents be legally prevented from giving or passing on their wealth to their offspring? If not, why not?

no, why? freedom.

38. AAI 07

Comment #84200 by 3legcat on November 1, 2007 at 12:10 pm

One day, hopefully (100 years?), Sierra Leone, will be like Norway

wouldn't that be dull. if i were sierra leone i would want the freedom to choose for myself what to be like, both as an individual and as a society.

39. AAI 07

Comment #84188 by 3legcat on November 1, 2007 at 11:50 am

hello brian,

pardon my interruption, earlier you stated easy peasy, tax the arse off the rich, i am curious, is taxing the rich an unpleasant but necessary means to an end (easing social problems) or is taxing the rich itself one of your ends (social engineering). or IOW, if there were no social problems to cure would you still advocate for income redistribution, because income disparity itself needs curing. how about between countries and continents? how bout a world tax? why or why not?

seems to me that cherishing liberty, personal freedom and personal responsibility while remaining sympathetic to those in need is something easily agreed upon. i suspect the question posed by scooter and others is how best to help those in need, who can help themselves (not disabled) a temporary lift, and equal opportunity might be the best help of all that one can give to another as apposed to permanent assistance.

40. AAI 07

Comment #83872 by 3legcat on October 31, 2007 at 2:00 pm

I keep hearing it's in crisis.

that would be the K-12 public system, not the universities ("higher education")

the crisis in higher ed would be the price, my daughter's school is 50k/yr

(thank goodness for public assistance, ;>)

41. AAI 07

Comment #83849 by 3legcat on October 31, 2007 at 1:28 pm

i'll take your points in reverse order if that pleases you.

curiously American.
indeed.

Yet you balk at social welfare and education
no not really a balk, more of a cold stare to the pitcher's mound. clearly there is a role for safety nets and i am certainly pro public education. these are necessary ingredients for a functioning state. i merely observe, as do other americans, that some safety nets do not lift people up, but rather hold them down, unintended.

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?


but comparing the taxation policy of a progressive democracy to a fascist dictatorship is hardly meaningful, is it?
no not really very meaningful, but then i don't think sweden and the usa are very comparable either.

Nobody wants higher taxes
actually i can think of some situations where i would gladly pay more taxes. for example, for a health care system, i loved, would be one. one that benefited everyone. for me there exists a credibility problem with government in general, in this country that makes many of us, well, sceptical ... we don't seem to produce great leaders here, just blowhards. i don't like blowhards. i don't trust them with anything. not with my money nor my liberty

nice talking to you brian as always. btw.

42. AAI 07

Comment #83835 by 3legcat on October 31, 2007 at 12:35 pm

hi brian,

you : 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?

i'll take the bait ;)

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

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?

sweden, usa and cuba are very different countries they are not really a comparable basis upon which to base a tax policy.

oh and before the howls come, i vote democrat but i hold my nose doing it.

43. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81143 by 3legcat on October 24, 2007 at 8:48 am

just finished, good and interesting debate, pretty even up. lots of forceful arguments by both, both got in some nice zingers, a nice reminder as to why i come here. for those of you disappointed, i ask what would you have rather had? and why?

44. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81139 by 3legcat on October 24, 2007 at 8:35 am

D'Souza:

"why would wishfull thinking invent hell?"

answer

heaven is for me (and my tribe), hell is for you (and yours)

love, fear and jealousy

45. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79962 by 3legcat on October 19, 2007 at 9:09 am

why are nuns driving around with specimen jars?

46. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79694 by 3legcat on October 18, 2007 at 7:28 am

bluejway said:

But finding a basis, a solid basis for your morals in some kind of philosophical sense, is a much harder question than you admit.

god made me this way or i evolved this way? some evidence for one, very little for the other, but both beyond arbitrary choice. some think they are one in the same (ken miller, mcgrath, collins) but as soon as they leap from spinoza to jesus christ, well you see the problem...

does god hate murder because murder is bad, or is murder merely bad because god hates it? does the god concept really solve the problem of relativism? could god have created a sustainable universe of murders to praise him for creation?

perhaps our platonic eternal notion of justice is a normal frontal lobe response to strong emotional survival instincts. we like putting things into categories don't yah think?

and just so you aren't left with the impression that we here of one single opinion on everything, i do not wish to imagine a world without religion (as soon as Creed is on my side i am switching), just one without authoritarians, but you and i agree on this.

atheist jokes are better.

47. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #77007 by 3legcat on October 8, 2007 at 6:45 am

Detox: Scooternyc and 3legcat: whether Dennett's point about Gitmo was silly or not the real answer to the question of what to do with them is to try them for a crime in a recognised court of law and if guilty, imprison them, if not guilty, release them.

and what if they are being held for merely participating on the other side of a war? we don't have trials for prisoners of war because merely participating (on the other side) isn't illegal. so we hold them till the war ends. so you are arguing either, shooting at american soldiers is a war crime OR we should always kill enemy combatants because holding them is illegal?

if someone in another country shoots at an american soldier, and is then captured alive, they should be brought to an american court and put on trial? for what? attempted murder? wouldn't that be self-defense? should our captured soldiers be held or tried by their courts?

detox: unless you can prove that they have actually committed a crime then you cannot, in all conscience, detain them.

the point of the Geneva conventions is to hold (humanely) enemy combatants without trial, in all good conscience... being a soldier is expressedly Not a crime. or are you arguing that the rules only apply to nation states?

48. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76286 by 3legcat on October 5, 2007 at 11:08 am

hello brian,

hope all is well with you,

"Merely noting that it at least has the potential to lead to similar outcomes"

Qtub lived in america in the 1950's and determined that we are a reprehensible, amoral disgusting culture and left, his evidence: we are devoted to lawn care and we allow women to dance with men in public. clearly the cheese slipped off his cracker long before he was tortured. the evidence tells me that there is more to qtub than a normal guy turned monster by torture.

there are many good reasons to oppose torture, i am certain we agree on all of them. i do think it unlikely that the US Gov is engaged in severe physical torture in such a high profile setting as gitmo (i do think it highly likely in the black sites and in third countries). i do not doubt that my threshold of humane treatment and that of the white house are vastly different.

"but gitmo represents a major injustice."

how so? what would you do with genuine terrorists, caught in the act of terrorism? not a part of a nation state in an endless war?

i wouldn't torture, i would allow visits by the red cross/crescent, it would be open to scrutiny, but yes i would hold them and i am not sure i would use the domestic justice system or jails? what would you do?

49. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76272 by 3legcat on October 5, 2007 at 9:49 am

the suggestion that conditions at Gitmo are similar to the egyption hell holes is mere piffle.

i don't like gitmo, it was/is bad policy, but they are clearly not the same, not in prisoner treatment, nor in their ability to "create" monsters (whatever that means).

many prisoners at gitmo have been cleared for release, if only some country would take them. perhaps an adoption program would be helpful.

50. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75681 by 3legcat on October 3, 2007 at 10:02 am

Why do you smoke?

absent all else, smoking is enough to get out of bed for. it is worth living for, on its own.

all this great cause and movement talk is giving me the willies.

"I don't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member" - woody allen