501. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106752 by phil rimmer on January 3, 2008 at 11:58 am

To be genetically modified so I could have the Netgear Giganode wireless modem implant would be pretty cool.

I'd opt for Wikipedia 3.0, Google Universe, and the traffic cameras on the M25 as permanently streamed resources. It would be great up until Virgin Media decided my network connection needed an upgrade and increased my tariff to cover the cost. Or Bill F****ing Gates auto-updated Mental Windows for Plebs with service pack 3 and made all my old memories unreadable. Why of why didn't I choose Apple Hyper Cortex?

Seriously, would we all opt for the same genetic upgrade or will this be the great parting of the ways?

502. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105676 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I found the remains of the fridge in last night's champagne.

Some party! Respec.

503. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105672 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 1:51 pm

WithGoodReason

Excellent moniker. Welcome and Happy New Year to you. Witty rationalism you'll find here aplenty, but probably not from me at the moment. (Found the remains of last nights champagne in the fridge.) So. Well. Cheers!

504. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105662 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm

D'ya think the naughtycleverdick has cottoned on yet that we've all been given hush money???

505. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105661 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I may be naive, but I kind of assumed that the idea of a comments page was to respond to both the article and the existing contributions

My second post, where I took a particular poster to task for outrageous stereotyping, has failed to appear after 4 hours.....

Perhaps these calumnies are to be taken as articles of faith and are to be respected? (Heaves)

506. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #105639 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 11:27 am

Steve: It seems to have had no impact at all on that comments page. The repulsive nonsense is still continuing.

There's a lot of ugly minds on display there. The stereotyping is disgraceful. I'm sure your measured post will slowly work its way into some of those stubborn heads. As ever, my posts were rather less gracious.

507. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105628 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 9:52 am

Paula,

Sussed again :-(

(Oh, why did I lie in that personal ad?)

508. A War On Science

Comment #105625 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

steveroot

Their clear-headed commitment to Truth in science is illustrated by the nature of some of those quotes. Here's one I caught-

"The truth is that once you embark on Darwinian nihilism there is no resting place. If there is no point in life, everything in the end has to go — duty, laws, arts, letters, society — and you are left with nothing, except 'proceeding'.

Paul Johnson (The Spectator, 23 April 2005)"

They don't have a (gulp) agenda do they?

509. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105621 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 9:06 am

gd_edi

Not complicated just high maintenance.

(The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily the opinions of the author. Any similarity between the characters portrayed and those in real life are entirely unintentional, darling.)

510. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105616 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 8:50 am

AllanW

Good extension to Richards list. (Roger's firing on all cylinders at present. Stonking!)

I'd like to add Diacanu, for the scalpal-like and creative use of invective. Such precise and well judged use of the f-word is a joy. 's cool too.

Spooky? At the moment I'm reading John Brockman's collection of Edge essays "What are you optimistic about?" I can recommend that too.

511. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #105593 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 6:10 am

I purposely drew a veil over Science's Evil Twin, Technology. Representing the conditions of Knowing and Doing respectively they do have different moral "footprints".

I want to say something along the lines that knowing things, testing knowledge and moving towards truth can surely only be viewed as virtuous, no matter how unfortunate that truth may be. Doing things, however, can go either way and, sadly, frequently does.

I have to admit to calling myself a scientist on a few occasions to hide the shameful truth that I am actually a technologist. (New year's resolution- Know more, do less.)

Epeeist: Just got the avatar. LOL.

512. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #105588 by phil rimmer on January 1, 2008 at 5:44 am

Surely part of what religion does is to think about whether it is right to accept changes as morally acceptable, e.g. euthanasia Science has no automatic moral underpinning. It merely says....we can (or cannot) do this or that.

Moral progress these days occurs through the better discernment of harm or the risk of harm to others. The basic principles of moral behaviour are accessible to all. Genetically underpinned and first formally voiced by the Axial Age thinkers across the globe, these ideas of morality became embedded in many traditions, including those of philosophy and religion.

The problem is religion added some extra stuff about morality. This stuff muddies the otherwise straightforward ideas of what moral behaviour is. Good Christians (etc.) believe that God's love of all his children is some kind of powerful extra motor for moral behaviour. (I love you, stranger, because God loves you.) This is an intellectual conceit that has no basis in the real world. Siblings have always fought for more of the attention from their loving parent. Bad religites make a virtue of this selfishness, ascribing all the Love to themselves. Of course, actively immoral behaviour is the result.

So, this extra motor for moral behaviour cannot be made into a TEST of the morality of a proposition as, say the Golden Rule might be, because to do so is to make it divisive like the bad religites. Surely, the Good Christian (etc.) must see God's Love is a "Blessing" on the whole of Creation not the basis of a divisive pass/fail moral judgment?

Religion helps us be moral? As a powerful carrier of Axial Age ideas and the stentorian tone to make them stick in the uneducated mind, perhaps once. But now, the risks are proving to be too great.

Science on the other hand may certainly help us be more moral in revealing the true extent of possible harm to others.

513. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105402 by phil rimmer on December 31, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Kul 'am wa enta bi-khair, to all our readers.

But special thanks to all the wise heads here who've kept me sane this year. No mean feat.

514. Monkey, Business

Comment #105353 by phil rimmer on December 31, 2007 at 10:18 am

I look forward to reading the Shermer. His (albeit cuddly version of) Libertarianism might just be skewing him on monopolies. Microsoft is one thing, but AT&T, Standard Oil and Du Pont were quite another. (Du Pont held the US government to ransom over munitions having bought up every last black powder mill.) Free markets mostly work brilliantly, but setting a few ground rules is reasonable.

I would love to hear his views on the US v. Sweden debate.

515. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104989 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 9:28 am

Spam flagged too. If rafael184 wants to submit specific arguments that we can reasonably discuss, that would be fine.

516. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104982 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 9:19 am

Well ... almost. Those lions were mammals too

The meat digesting enzymes in my gut and the bacon sandwich in my hand spoils the effect as well.

517. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104966 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 7:28 am

But calling it play, doesn't explain why we have the urge to play, which is what I've tried to do.

It is extraordinary how playful animals are, mammals disproportionately so, higher mammals more and apes and dolphins arguably the most. Successful animals play. It combines both rehearsal of physical skills safely with an early form of scientific investigation, (look how slippy this mud is).

Skinner showed some aspects of how behaviour is learned, specifically positive reinforcement (negative works too but less well). Trying things out often leads to pleasurable results. Getting to the pleasure quicker leads the evolution of more effective play. Quite incidentally the skills lead to enhanced survival and are selected for.

Thats why I say the true innovators do it for childlike pleasure. The exploiters do it for increased social capital. I also believe market forces existed in neolithic times, but maybe I watched the Flintstones too much as a kid.

518. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104962 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 7:08 am

Until we have far, far more detail about how thoughts happen and how they change and interact, it seems to me to be highly premature to label this "Darwinian", which means something far more specific than "selecting what is best".

I appreciate your caution here. "Darwinian" brings a lot of baggage, I'm sure a lot may prove totally inappropriate.

Where do you stand on memes and evolutionary processes? In coining the idea of memes Dawkins was moderately cautious not to ascribe too much to the genetic parallel. If creativity existed only at this highest level of conscious and expressible ideas, could Darwin be reasonably invoked? I realize this wouldn't necessarily cover pre-linguistic or pre-symbolic thinking, (the raven fashioning a metal hook from wire to retrieve a reward, for instance).

Like you I struggle to see evolution in strictly neurological processes. Hebbian learning, apoptosis, reinforcement etc. have no discernible copying mechanism for starters.

I still can't get your idea that you can get a lot of Design very quickly from an arrangement of simple elements and that this is an argument against its achievement through evolutionary means. Sorry. Brain in post sunday lunch mode.

519. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104947 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 5:52 am

Dr. Patrick

I think you have some of the elements.

Being the first spear maker is good, but not very. Who knows how to use it? Being a better spear maker is great. You have a partially educated market and a better product. (Marconi, Edison, Bell etc. came second and won.) Useful creations evolved. True (initiating) innovators rarely achieve status or reward.

So why do they do it? Well, I think its akin to your first point, "succeeding at a given task not directly related to survival". If necessity is the mother of invention I think the father is PLAY.

In my mind play is inextricably linked to creativity. I think it no accident that the great mushrooming of inventiveness in England in the eighteenth century coincided with the advent of modern childhood when great numbers of preteens from the new "middling" classes were relieved of the obligation to work and educated and indulged with toys and newly written children's books. Educators could be surprisingly enlightened, believing that education should "delight the mind" as much as instruct.

Play was a proper pursuit for children and the opportunity to try and fail without consequence, but for the fun in trying, set the stage for a period of super-creativity.

What is the cause of the opportunity to play? Surplus wealth. Spare time. And in earlier times? Already being successful hunter gatherer apes.

520. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104941 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 5:06 am

Great video, Brian. Makes you proud to be a mammal.

521. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #104936 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 4:50 am

The Bishop

Religious people have been at fault in the past for slagging off moralities that did not have a faith basis.

At the beginning of this new year, with the world so stricken with growing inequality, corruption, decadence and conflict, each of us, believer and unbeliever alike, need all the help we can get.

Again another sign that C of E moderates are seeking an accommodation with Atheism. They have rightly discerned that the issue of morality may actually be a key strength of ours.

Typical though that an appeal to moral decline is made, when the evidence shows the converse.

Scooternyc

One can only capitalize that which already exists from within.

As individuals, absolutely right. Our genetic bequest underpins everything.

Uncle JJ. Absolutely right. The morality of our socio-political systems (in the west at least) has its roots in the Axial Age (600BC ish).

522. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #104927 by phil rimmer on December 30, 2007 at 3:46 am

There are situations in computational systems where Design can fall "like manna from heaven"

But punctuated equilibrium and cladogenesis are Darwinian compatible ideas that cover this surely?

That there are lacunae of stable systems (small and large)in a morass of chaotic, unstable possibilities does not in any way count against them being "discovered" by an essentially Darwinian process.

What frustrates me about this article (but perhaps not in the book that will surely follow) is an absence of the delineation of the neural processes that could lead to evolved thoughts. High level conscious thinking is not a problem. Memes work for me. It is the unconscious thinking that is the issue.

Maybe this is what you're talking about, Steve. You wake up with the solution to a problem suddenly available to you. A lot of problem solving seems to work like that for me.

The question is, how "executive" is unconscious thought? Is it simply conscious thought where we've somehow failed to remember the context of the thought? This untagged thought, perhaps, is less generally accessible to us but may be accessed at critical moments when a bunch of self-consistent such thoughts become available and get worked through with uncanny ease and familiarity.

(Reading my own writings from even just a few months ago I am astonished at the unfamiliarity of some of the ideas in there. I can't remember ever thinking such thoughts.)

523. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104742 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 10:12 am

Like the new pic, Steve. Has a certain gravitas.

524. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104698 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 6:29 am

I don't see what opinion of RDs world view he could have, other than that RD is an unconscious believer while consciously/wilfully denying god's existence.

I think RW is moving into a Panglossian / What a Wonderful World view of religion. God works through the totality of his creation which is available to all. In this he's keeping up with the zeitgeist of our common stewardship of our pale-blue-dot-of-a-home. Generally, this is a good thing as it suggests a drift towards deism (we are a product of and driven by our god-given environment) rather than theism (god made us and directs us).

525. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104696 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 6:16 am

Ah religion! Its about nothing unless its about politics.

526. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104671 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 5:24 am

The Archbishop, however daffy he may seem, is far from intellectually lacking and he'll have had a reason for referring to RD in this way. And you may be sure his aim is to weaken atheism, not strengthen it.

Well its a hugely risky play. He knows that RD gets as much attention as he now from the media. I suspect his intention is rather more what he might term "an accommodation". I would have thought he rather wants RD to stop hitting him and direct his blows more clearly to his breakaway homophobic mob.

527. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104661 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 5:10 am

It's quite abhorrent actually. I am disappointed that many of you can't see through this.

But this is exactly how religion may begin to morph into something less obnoxious. I hope they steal all our clothes. Few of us here have the view that religion stands high on the matter of intellectual integrity. Another shameful fudge is just what we need.
The one piece of honesty in this is that atheists are acknowledged as in some sense worthy. This is a sea change to be voiced at this level. Many Christians I have talked to (many seemingly charming) have a very low opinion of us.(Notable exception here- Krisking)

528. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104611 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 2:04 am

Nevertheless I've not seen a more clear case of blinkered dogma being dissonant from reality for a very long time.

Actually, I share your glee. Its bonkers. Its bloody marvelous.

529. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104609 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 2:01 am

It is actually this very thinking that leads to the wickedness the Pope fears.

If the Pope were to say satanism is complete nonsense, much so-called satanic behaviour would cease.

It is also analogous to our current political leaders using the threat of terrorism to scare us into being a more obedient flock.

530. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104601 by phil rimmer on December 29, 2007 at 1:51 am

It's the corollary of the Asimov observation; 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'.

Thought it was Arthur C. Clarke? [edit] it was

Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)

531. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104518 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 5:18 pm

No, I don't believe this at all.

Tinker! You might have said earlier. Anyway, I'm delighted to hear it.

532. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104510 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 5:04 pm

I think the Archbishop is attempting to follow the Microsoft strategy

Yes but its a hiding to nothing as it involves further dissolution of dogma and stretching of limits.

533. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104503 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Well, you did ask the question.

Well actually it was rhetorical. You see I was explaining that the good Archbishop had already provided the first part of the answer for us and that we should be (a little) grateful for this civility.....

534. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104488 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Phil: How will the religious come to recognize that we atheists are not sad lost, barely moral creatures with a great big God-shaped hole in us?

Kris: Perhaps when "(you) atheists" start saying more about than world than just "God doesn't exist, science proves it, and that's all we're saying"

Ha-hah! So its true! You think we're sad lost, barely moral creatures.

And maybe you actually missed what RW said about RD. Did you read the article? Did you follow my comment?

He likened Professor Dawkins' understanding of the beauty of the world around us with that of St John of the Cross, the 16th-century mystic.

Elegant riposte, Steve.

535. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104352 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 11:10 am

How is the change going to happen? How will the religious come to recognize that we atheists are not sad lost, barely moral creatures with a great big God-shaped hole in us? Despite claims to the contrary from some religious leaders, this statement regarding RD, marks our (atheist) aesthetic sensibilities as being FULLY intact, at least.

Though the compliment is back-handed it stands and cannot reasonably be retracted. This is a firm step to saying that God is not in here (touches head and heart) but out there (waves arm). From theist to deist from deist to....cured....

536. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104320 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 10:24 am

He likened Professor Dawkins' understanding of the beauty of the world around us with that of St John of the Cross, the 16th-century mystic.

Progress of sorts. Next we need an admission that he (we) might be as moral.

537. The Pagan Christ

Comment #104301 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 9:45 am

For krisking might I also suggest

(2003) Science: A History 1543-2001. Gardners Books. ISBN 0-14-029741-3

by John Gribbin.

This is a brilliant read, stuffed with fascinating personal details. The struggle for supremacy of the scientific method in discerning truth is a particular theme.

538. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104279 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 9:07 am

AtheistJon.

I guess I'm not saying it right. So I'd better stop. I was not offended by your views. I did not intend personal offense though I admit I may have been offensive in my phrasing. My apologies.

But I did want to move the debate on from the naturalness of otherwise of homosexuality to include the bigger(!) question of how we deal with such personal feelings. Sadly, not to be. Maybe next time.

539. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #104237 by phil rimmer on December 28, 2007 at 7:32 am

AtheistJon

Isn't it their own perogative to have this feeling? It seems to me that having such a feeling is devoid of a moral element. It's the acting on those feelings that is the key here.

Having such feelings and deciding not to ANALYZE them is my beef. How you eventually act on your own feelings will depend on what you decide about them one way or the other. I don't really care which way you decide about them, what dismays me is the absence of any kind of introspection about the matter.

I became a strong atheist after years of lazy agnosticism precisely because I saw that leading a better, more moral, life could only flow from being sceptical about all apparent evidence, first person as well as third person. You offer the evidence of your feelings then flatly refuse to think about it.

My reaction is not necessarily the "correct" reaction nor is it the "incorrect" one... it's merely the one I have.

Questions I would love you to ask yourself are, "Are there any future moral repercussions to my feelings in this instance? Am I just "straighter" than others here? Did my upbringing have any effect on these feelings? Etc., etc."

Your feelings are still your responsibility even though you didn't bid them come. And you acted on your feelings in your earlier posts by choosing the language you did.

For the record I am-

Politically non-lateral
Pro Hitchens but Iraq sceptical
Nominally straight but on the Benway 3^4 scale I have clusters around 35 and 67 (69 is soo passé) with an ambition to try 3 if I can get the insurance.

540. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103978 by phil rimmer on December 27, 2007 at 12:25 pm

phil rimmer (addressed to atheistjon) : I only sought from you the first step on the road to decency, remorse.

Paula Kirby: Have just read this comment. It could be straight out of the mouth of an evangelical. Repent and salvation shall be yours!

Ouch! My worst nightmare. Accused of being no better than an evangelical, AND by someone whose judgment and views I find pretty much faultless. On reflection I have to admit it looks bad, and my attempt at a slick formulation for a much longer argument doesn't do the job I intended.

Mark Smith does a better job in 151. Comment #103649. And al-rawandi suitably finishes the point in 152.

Personally I have no problem with atheistjon feeling disgust. One can imagine a hundred reasons why he might be led to react so viscerally. Equally, I am not greatly concerned with being Politically Correct. I see it as being often condescending and divisive. No. My concern is at the very root of what we are about on this site i.e.- seeking to live the most rational lives we can, given the decidedly Unintelligent Design of our brains.

Do we not seek to rise above our impulses where appropriate? Do we not test our first impressions to see if they are genuinely useful, rational? Often first impressions can be useful and rational, though perhaps not immediately so. But we should always test them, right?

Magical thinking, xenophobia, inappropriate disgust or love, arise unbidden. How we choose to deal with it is the mark of us. All I wanted to hear from atheistjon was, "I know its stupid, but..." as a prefix to what he wanted to say. Or if he could not be persuaded into that, at least begin the debate as to why he feels it may NOT be stupid. To leave the question of the rationality of his response unaddressed is disingenuous.

Much as I enjoyed the exchanges in this thread, no-one has dealt with this issue of the rationality of disgust at homosexuality, only the naturalness of homosexuality itself. I don't even think the latter is an issue. Natural or unnatural my concern is the same.

541. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103503 by phil rimmer on December 26, 2007 at 12:48 am

phil rimmer, disgust isn't always irrational

No! You meant to say disgust isn't always unnatural, to which we could all agree. The issue is entirely about how you choose to deal with natural reactions that are nevertheless irrational. My amygdala naturally streams xenophobic reactions into my brain. My public behaviour, however, is all my own rational doing.

I only sought from you the first step on the road to decency, remorse.

542. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103437 by phil rimmer on December 25, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Paula,

I have irrational disgust over some things. Where this reaction might distress others, were it to be made public, I would be ashamed of this aspect of myself. I have no control over my amygdala, but I can seek to minimise the harm wrought by its primitive outpourings.

Either the disgust someone feels at imagining homosexual acts is rational or irrational. To not acknowledge regret for a personal, irrational response, that distresses blameless others, is a pretty poor show. Unless, of course, in the very omission of regret you intend to imply the response is rational and the offending others are indeed blameworthy if not actually criminal...

543. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #103430 by phil rimmer on December 25, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Immaculate lesson, Dr. B.

Today has not been a waste.

(I would have done something crass like point out the Freudian implications of masturbatory fantasies like "Why should everybody be forced to swallow homosexuality..")

544. Blair converts to Catholicism

Comment #102749 by phil rimmer on December 23, 2007 at 2:15 pm

I hate Blair for all the failed promises, the lies and the theft of our open society for entirely self-serving reasons. I love Blair for the successful destruction of a huge swathe of (leftist / rightist) political dogma. No more are our political choices forced on us by a crass assessment of our current political "location". The simple merit of solutions counts for more than it used to. (True Maggie [Thatcher] paved the way by the wholesale slaughter of the trade unions and the political "drag" they represented, but it was Blair that showed a moderately civilized country could be run without the fatuous left/right punch-ups.)

It is my experience that though Roman Catholicism represents a higher level of dogmatism than a cosy Vicar of Dibleyism, its practitioners are often more exciting, well-rounded and naturally sinful individuals, perhaps by virtue of possessing the ultimate "get out of jail free" card, the confessional. If your wife's there already, opting for Dogmatism with an inexhaustible pile of doctor's notes seems an obvious choice for someone so naturally deceptive.

[edit] Oops! Just noticed the very proper reluctance to get into matters of petty politics. I shall stop at once.

545. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102729 by phil rimmer on December 23, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Hyperthermia??

Ah! That'll be from sacrificing them on the bonfire, I guess.

546. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99262 by phil rimmer on December 16, 2007 at 6:19 am

ADH: I love the poem he mentioned by Philip Larkin.

A serious house on serious earth it is,
In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,
Are recognized, and robed as destinies.
And that much never can be obsolete,
Since someone will forever be surprising
A hunger in himself to be more serious,
And gravitating with it to this ground,
Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,
If only that so many dead lie round.

ADH, why?

[edit] removing ad hominem

547. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99255 by phil rimmer on December 16, 2007 at 5:48 am

Diacanu

Thanks for posting the Vanity Fair article link

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711

I had thought Hitchens wore his moral responsibilities in the matter of Iraq too lightly. If he did, he clearly doesn't now.

548. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #98979 by phil rimmer on December 15, 2007 at 5:05 am

Josh,

Brilliant job. This is a substantial and useful contribution.

Keith,

I know what you mean about CH. He really can shoot from the lip with inappropriate ease. BUT....here he was a good "devil's advocate" on several occasions, bringing the scientists back from the brink of oversimplification.

[EDIT} Just watched the second hour. The rest of my post turned out to be nonsense. I will delete it to hide my shame...

549. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98719 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 6:10 am

A matter of taste I guess, Steve.

I'm mystified by Billy Connolly, f'rinstance.

Hitchens, however, could do a great nightclub act, perched on a bar stool a la Dave Allen or Lenny Bruce, clutching a glass of scotch and wreathed in cigarette smoke.....

550. Laugh at Sudan

Comment #98696 by phil rimmer on December 14, 2007 at 4:28 am

I can't see that much new or interesting about what he is saying.

I think many people here, for instance, re-cycle their thoughts. However, he does have a way with coining new ways of seeing and saying it.

"Thats what happens when little men get hold of big ideas..." sums up perfectly the mindset of the troublemakers. A valuable insight.