Comments by Steve Zara

51. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236080 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 6:54 am

Comment #236072 by ColdFusionLazarus

The fact is that Religion (not Islam specifically) is the problem.

I think it is even more than that. It is fear of giving offense to other cultures as well. There are issues like FGM that are sometimes not discussed because it is "a difference of culture".

52. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236077 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 6:48 am

Fanusi-

I made it perfectly clear that the death penalty should only be applied in cases where the evidence was really uncontrovertible, and the example I gave was catching incitement to mass murder and treason on tape.

Hey - if it is really uncontrovertible, why bother with a trial? Why require that the authenticity of such tapes need to be checked?

Steve stubbornly resisted the idea that those who have said that they want Shariah law in the United Kingdomn are extremely unlikely to vote against it in a referendum.

No, I did not say that. You asked me for a way in which people who only supported milder forms of Shariah (such as those involved in business or financial disputes) could counteract stronger forms of Shariah.

As usual (to use a nice metaphor I recently heard here) you have cut the bits off of what I say in order to make it fit your jigsaw-puzzle of what you need to imagine what others are saying to justify your position.

I'd also point out that while twp and I have been fruitfully trading ideas, all steve does is whine about what's proposed and offer nothing himself.

You need to keep up with the thread. I have proposed alternatives.

I would also suggest that it is quite acceptable to simply rubbish a solution to a supposed problem if you consider the solution on a par with the problem. If we follow your solutions, my feeling is that we will have changed our society into the kind of place we should be fighting to avoid, and in some ways we will be in a worse situation because we will have done it to ourselves. Islam would have said "boo"! and we will have self-destructed.

53. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #236055 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 5:21 am

Comment #236054 by SPS

I think it is probably good manners to respect Richard's wishes in post 122. I say this as someone guilty of the wandering off topic about which he is complaining!

54. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236053 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 5:14 am

Comment #236050 by thewhitepearl

Sure, but that is what we have prisons for.

55. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236049 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 5:00 am

TWP-

I don't really see anything he has said so far on this thread as being extreme or a degradation of civilised society.

I am afraid that for me the expulsion of natives is pretty extreme.

56. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236043 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 4:37 am

Comment #236038 by thewhitepearl

You obviously don't agree with some of Fanusis tactics.

That is an understatement :)

I disagree with his whole stance. He seems to want to talk up a problem (which I agree exists) to a level at which his extreme (in my view) tactics may be considered acceptable by some. My view is that if his tactics are used, we would have already lost the supposedly civilized society we are attempting to defend.

Nairb continues to do an excellent job of showing how Fanusi exaggerates things.

So why not slap up some suggestions of your own?

We need a political campaign to ensure that incitement to violence is not protected by religious or cultural sensitivity.

57. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236041 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #236036 by Vaal

The worry to me Steve, is that these are not being acted upon

I agree.

I wrote a letter some time ago to the home secretary, which he actually replied to (amazingly), about Abu Izzadeen calling for British Muslim soldiers to be killed on national TV, with what seemed like impunity. He was arrested shortly after I wrote the letter and Gordon Brown used one of my phrases on TV shortly afterwards :)

This shows what can be done.

58. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236034 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 4:14 am

Comment #236028 by Vaal

What would be your solution to Islamic fundamentalism in this country, and what measures do you think should be taken against these "preachers of hate" and their ilk?

Exposure, as in these documentaries is a very good start.

If there is incitement to violence, that is a criminal offence. It has to be dealt with through the appropriate legal systems.

59. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236032 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 4:10 am

Comment #236029 by thewhitepearl

Yes that is all I know. You're playing on semantics and that's pretty lousy.

I am not playing on semantics. I consider this to be of the utmost importance. Certainties are dangerous. Certainty about guilt is very dangerous to assume.

This could be because instead of paying attention to the entire message you are instead giving more attention to the messenger?

No, it is because this has been part of a longer, on-going discussion.

I have tried to be polite to you. I would have hoped you could have returned the favour.

60. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236023 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 3:40 am

Fanusi-

It is interesting, however, to note that apparently the wishes of the citizens of Saudi Arabia should be taken into consideration, and that we seem to owe some sort of moral obligation to them, but not to the citizens of the Western democracies. Fascinating.

Eh?

Unlike you, I assume that we owe moral obligations to all citizens, whether or not they live in Western democracies.

61. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236021 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 3:36 am

Comment #236018 by thewhitepearl

If you are caught with a ticking time bomb set for two minutes on a five minute one way bus ride by the bus driver, the people on the bus, the law enforcement-where is the doubt that you were about to blow up the bus and commit a terroist attack?

All you know is that someone was caught what what someone else reported was a bomb.

There is always uncertainty.

You are just reacting to one casual suggestion. What about the idea as a whole? Why do you feel that pushing back on the islamic government as a way to save apostates is not (less) ethical?

Perhaps I was reacting to something you weren't actually saying. I was assuming some sort of pressure being applied to those governments to accept those who were being expelled.

In more general terms, I have less problem. What troubles me is a conversation in which ideas like seizing oil fields are thrown out casually.

62. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236014 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #236012 by thewhitepearl

If you are caught with a ticking time bomb set for two minutes on a five minute one way bus ride-where is the doubt?

Let's start again. Caught by who?

All of this, in the end, comes down to "I knew someone who said that they caught that person in the act".

How?

If we (as has been suggested) seize oil fields, who do you think will suffer most - the rich rulers or the typical citizen?

63. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236007 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:58 am

Comment #236004 by thewhitepearl

And as Fanusi and I were discussing, finding an effective way to push back at the Islamic governments if they decide to get in the way.

In my opinion that makes the approach even less ethical. If you push back at such governments, they will have little hesitation in passing on the burden of whatever sanctions you apply to their citizens.

Of course I wouldn't deny a human the right to a trial.

If there is a need for a trial (and there always is), then there is uncertainty, and a death penalty is even less appropriate (which was the point I was trying to make).

64. Black holes 'dodge middle ground'

Comment #236005 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:53 am

Comment #236003 by ridelo

Spacecraft get energy when they pass by planets by slowing the planets down in their orbits a little. Effectively the probes are "bouncing off" the planets.

65. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #236000 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:39 am

Comment #235997 by bugaboo

A worry for me in this whole business is that the extreme right will gain favour among the British electorate with simplistic right wing solutions to these difficult problems.

I agree.

66. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235999 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:38 am

Comment #235995 by thewhitepearl

We are sending them to their "home" land if you will. If you are an islamic leader/beliver/follower than go to an established islamic government system/country.

Once again I profess, I don't understand how that is morally dodgy.

We usually consider Islamic regimes to be oppressive. Because of that, it isn't reasonable to say that the people within those countries don't mind about their regimes. Usually a significant number of people within those regimes suffer a lack of rights (women, homosexuals). By sending supporters of the regime to that country we are adding to their oppression.

Well, law enforcement to begin with.

Exactly. But we don't assume immediate guilt because someone was caught by law enforcement. We still expect a trial, where the process by which the person was caught, and the associated evidence is examined. There is always an element of doubt.

67. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235992 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 2:20 am

TWP-

I think I made a brief comment earlierhow I wish we could expell all of the muslims. Although I don't believe I was referring to muslims that were born on our land.

If you weren't, then my comment does not apply.

To use other countries as dumping grounds? You mean the countries that are a-ok with Islamic Government systems? I don't exactly see how deporting an Islamic leader to an Islamic ran country is a "dumping ground". And if that's what it is, I certainly don't see the problem or how that is morally dodgy.

Do you consider Islamic government compatible with human rights? Do you think a democratic nation would want to take people we consider to be dangerous? But, if we aren't sending them to democracies, we are dumping such people into countries with no knowledge of the will of the citizens there. I think that is certainly morally dodgy.

Ummm well if you are on a bus and you have a ticking bomb, and you get caught...What other conclusion can you come up with other than that individual was about to blow the bus and all of the inhabitants to pieces?

Caught by who?

68. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235979 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:32 am

Comment #235976 by thewhitepearl

I guess I am just sceptical of the idea that any evidence can be 100% reliable. For example, what does "caught in the act" mean? Who "caught" the individual? I think that irreversible punishments are to be avoided anyway, but particularly when there is always uncertainty.

69. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235972 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:21 am

Comment #235969 by thewhitepearl

I think you need to research how frequently people have been wrongly accused of terrorism here in the UK.

70. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235968 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:18 am

Comment #235964 by thewhitepearl

Apart from the issue of expelling native citizens, I think it is morally dodgy to use other countries as dumping grounds for our problems. The countries may be ruled by unpleasant regimes, but we aren't respecting the rights of the citizens if we use their society as a form of waste disposal.

71. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235963 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:13 am

Comment #235951 by Fanusi Khiyal

We could make it very clear, just to take one example, that we are willing to embargo a country that doesn't knock that off - or seize it's oil fields, or whatever.

Sometimes one does not need to argue - just quote.

72. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235945 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:43 am

Comment #235943 by Fanusi Khiyal

Oh? And what about when Abu Hamzas new mujahideen converts get out of jail and kill fifty, sixty, a hundred innocents?

Killing people is naughty. We have a legal system to deal with people who kill.

73. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235942 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:39 am

Option 3, which I do reserve for incitement to jihad terrorism or being complicit in such acts, is death.

What a brilliant idea. It will be bad enough putting to death people who want to be martyrs for a cause, but just imagine what you will stir up if a less-than-perfect legal system wrongly puts to death an innocent.

There is no question you have considerable knowledge, but your "solutions" are little more than Richard Littlejohn-style rants.

74. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235708 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Comment #235704 by Joe Morreale

So, if you can't reply to my post with a simple example, then you, personally, are making Islam look bad.

I hope Muslims who read this site are seeing how you are lying and making them look bad.

75. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235702 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Comment #235698 by Joe Morreale

I have certainly not lied. My answers to transitional fossils, genetics and the rest are in my comments.

No, they aren't.

Answer my question. What kind of transitional fossil evidence would convince you?

If such answers were in your comments, then you could simply cut-and-paste a short answer.

Or, perhaps, you are adding yet another lie to your record?

The more you lie, the more you make Islam look evil, Joe. So, if you can't reply to my post with a simple example, then you, personally, are making Islam look bad.

76. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235693 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 11:59 am

Comment #235688 by Joe Morreale

You lie. Your posts are full of lies. You lied about wanting evidence from Dawkins (you won't say what evidence you want), you lied about no research having been done into the Chimpanzee genome. By the standards of your own religion, you have sinned.

77. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235691 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 11:56 am

Comment #235685 by DrCogSci

Personally, I don't think that the post was a result of malice. I am just a bit puzzled about why it is so problematic to edit those posts and put "I was wrong" at the start.

As I've said, I'd have really liked to see people engaging with the arguments *only*. Guess not.

Some of us have engaged with the arguments. You seem not to have noticed.

78. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235686 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 11:48 am

Joe says-

No such research is yet done for the chimpanzee.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html;jsessionid=F4F7A570586DD6D05FC6CD3BA3E1E006

You are a very naughty boy, Joe. It is bad to lie.

79. A flea we missed?

Comment #235680 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 11:35 am

Comment #235644 by al-rawandi

It's great to have you back.

80. Free Will vs. the Programmed Brain

Comment #235631 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #235107 by macros_man

You are right. The problem here is terminology. The "multiverse" is fixed.

81. A flea we missed?

Comment #235628 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 10:02 am

Comment #235624 by JAMCAM87

Being a gay myself, I am motivated!

Don't let me stop you gathering even more evidence.

It does make me realise how slimy David is when he says how reasonable I can be in discussions. I am reasonable, yet wicked, and (apparently) I feel worthless and spread disease. I suspect David feels virtuous because he can actually stomach responding to me.

82. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235616 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #235615 by BillySands

6. An article by Nicolien den Boer on the Dutch Radio Netherlands web site stated that the Atlas of Creation has stirred up a "deluge" in all of Europe.

Much like garry glitter has.

Nice to know what has caused this recent wet weather.

83. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235600 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:57 am

No more troll feeding for me for the time being. The feeding seems to have resulted in diarrhea.

84. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235598 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:56 am

Comment #235589 by njwong

Freedom of speech involves responsibility.

My view is that if someone has posted a blog entry that has caused understandable offense, but wishes to leave the blog entry there, it would be the decent thing to do to edit the entry and add a note at the top to say that they had changed their mind.

Asking someone to behave like that is not stifling free speech - it isn't compelling them.

85. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235595 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:50 am

Joe-

Oh dear. You just won't answer will you. Well, next time you talk about Dawkins not providing evidence we know you are lying, as you won't describe what that evidence needs to be.

Isn't lying like that sinful?

86. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235583 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:45 am

Joe-

Why don't you answer my simple question?

You set up the challenge for transitional fossils. You have to say what the conditions are.

87. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235578 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:39 am

Comment #235577 by Joe Morreale

Joe. Don't be a tease. If you are going to criticise someone for not providing acceptable transitional fossils, you are going to have to say what is acceptable.

I am waiting...

If richard believes he has a case what is he worried about?

I can't speak for Richard, but if it were me, I would be worried about a boring waste of time.

88. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235576 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:37 am

Comment #235568 by Peacebeuponme

The point will not be conceded.

I am taking Joe at his word, and seeing where it leads. He asked Dawkins to provide evidence. That implies he knows what evidence he is asking Dawkins to provide. At least I hope so, otherwise Joe is being just a bit naughty.

89. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235574 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:35 am

njwong-

I think Meadon has absolute freedom to write whatever he wants on his personal blog, including criticising RD and accusing RD of bad pedagogy (such is this amazing thing called "freedom of speech").

Sure, but to come to Richard's site and try and promote that opinion...

No, I don't agree with Meadon that RD was weak on pedagogy, but I can see Meadon's point of view and where he is coming from (so many students were still not convinced of evolution after the lessons and the field trip with the professor).

How is pointing out that many non-biblical-literalists accept evolution supposed to change the mind of a biblical literalist?

90. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235569 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:30 am

Joe-

What fossil are you asking Dawkins to bring to the table? What would it look like?

91. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235564 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:25 am

Comment #235561 by decius

But it's fun! I am dying to learn what a creationist like Joe considers to be a "transitional fossil".

92. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235563 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:23 am

Comment #235560 by Brian English

This reminds me of discussions with txpiper, in which he claims that the fossil record shows that crocodiles have not changed, so Darwin was wrong. A creationist using the fossil record...

93. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235558 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:15 am

Comment #235554 by Joe Morreale

If you think that your games will cut any ice me you are deluded.

What game?

You said that Dawkins would not bring a single genuine transitional fossil to the table.

If you use the term "genuine transitional fossil", you presumably must have some idea what it means. I am asking you what you understand by that term.

How can that be a difficult question? How can you ask Dawkins to bring something to the table if you are not prepared to explain what he should bring?

94. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235551 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 8:09 am

Comment #235548 by Joe Morreale

No joking can avoid the fact that Dawkins like the true coward that he is cannot bring any or ONE SINGLE GENUINE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL to the table and this is why he avoids the public debate.

What are your criteria for a transitional fossil being genuine?

95. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235539 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #235538 by Joe Morreale

You surely know the ideological importance of evolution

Please explain.

lies and deceptive scenario of religion and science not being compatable

What predictive power has religion? What testable ideas does it put forward?

96. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235515 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 7:01 am

Mitchell-

If the children maintain that view then it would be pointless, Steve, but I think that pointing out flaws in their reasoning, and promoting critical thinking, and reason will go along way to softening, if not changing such views. Which is what RD did.

Even if it doesn't work directly, it may help highlight the absurdity of literalist views to the peers of the student, and they may have influence.

97. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235495 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 6:25 am

What Meadon seems not to realise is that even his "good" pedagogy would fail utterly. What was being demonstrated in that classroom was that there are some students who will simply refuse to accept anything that disagrees with their literalist approach to religion. What good is pointing out to them that others view religion differently? The attitude of those students means that any discussion is, sadly, pointless.

98. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235479 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 5:59 am

Comment #235474 by Meadon

As I was at pains to point out, I'm not defending creationism or intelligent design creationism.

If you wish teachers in science lessons to point out the views of Ken Ham (as you say in your blog), that is just what you will be doing.

99. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235469 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 5:32 am

There is no consensus among the relevant experts about the relationship between religion and Darwinism. Therefore, good pedagogical practice requires of teachers, at a minimum, that they inform students about the set of alternatives.

In what context? The history of scientific thought? In Theology? I don't think it is appropriate for Dawkins to promote religion, by saying "don't worry, what I am about to show you should not threaten your beliefs". What he is (I believe) trying to do is to show the vast evidence for what Darwin discovered - evolution by natural selection. If some choose to deny that because of religious dogma, that is their problem. One can put forward the argument that science requires flexibility of thought, but I think that is it. It should not be a requirement for scientists to discuss religion in the context of science classes.

100. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235462 by Steve Zara on August 23, 2008 at 5:13 am

Comment #235460 by Dr Doctor