951. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #48870 by Corylus on June 9, 2007 at 9:12 am

Well, I have to 'fess up here. I love Harry Potter and I feel no shame. RDnet is getting no comments out of me for a few days when that last book comes out. I'm reading!

I do take peoples point, though that we should take this opportunity to lobby for children to have a wide range of pagan/wiccan/ subversive literature to hand, rather than just Rowling. Variety is the key.

I myself am voting for Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising sequence and Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea books.

952. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48800 by Corylus on June 9, 2007 at 4:53 am

Thanks for the feedback Logicel and Pewkatchoo

Pewkatchoo - feel free to quote :)

953. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48765 by Corylus on June 9, 2007 at 2:44 am

The real battle, and it applies to secular and religious alike, is: can we love, not hate, the people not like us?

An honest question in response to world conflict, but I believe the heart of the problem is illuminated in the very words he uses.

"People not like us". Define, "not like us" please!

Are these differences racial? Well no one has given me a satisfactory explanation what as exactly 'race' constitutes – the whole business seems to be more of a continuum than a divide.

Are these differences geographical? Partly, but as the Rabbi points out the world is different now, people are mingling and the media means that we can view events from far away as soon as they happen.

Are these differences ideological/religious? Certainly, but ideological and religious differences are in the main the product of upbringing. Ideologies can be changed, or why would we bother with debate? Conversions happen every day. This is not then an essential difference.

In fact, I do not think that there are any intrinsic differences: we are all the same. Therein lies the problem.

The rabbi is aware of the danger out-group hostility, but persists in using the language of difference all the while. When people of faith start talking about 'bridging gaps' and 'finding common ground' they are doubtless sincere; and I admire the effort made; but it often ends badly.

For example, they may start talking about having more in common with those that believe and those that don't. Great move! Or they may band together to protest that being told not to discriminate against homosexuals is 'against their conscience'. That's nice: "Lets band together in mutual solidarity and love: and decide who we both hate".

They need to give up this notion of 'difference'. However, in order to do this they must give up the idea of having exclusive access to truth's provided by God, the notion of "God's chosen people" has to go and the idea that some of us are hell bound and others saved really has to go.

This is not an easy thing to give up. The rabbi rightly states that we are tribal animals, but we are status animals too. 'Not like us' is a line we feed ourselves when we are feeling so insignificant and weak that we desire to look down upon others. We might be low, we say, but at least we are not them! We like to think that we are special, chosen, different. Nice daydream: give it up.

We can learn to love people who are not like us, but only when we realise that the differences we see are of our own making, and that in turn involves seeing that God is a creation of man and not the other way round. Until that realisation is made I am afraid that the Rabbi and his like are doomed to failure. Maybe, they will prove me wrong and bring the world together. Sometimes I like to be proved wrong. However, they have a long way to go…

954. In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

Comment #48557 by Corylus on June 8, 2007 at 11:24 am

Disturbance

I do like your word 'fundgelicals'!

It has the economy of combining two groups with similar ideals. It also has the added advantage of sounding like something that a person would get from their doctor when they have picked up a "dodgy" infection. :)

955. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48205 by Corylus on June 7, 2007 at 3:43 am

Biz

I cannot believe I have just spent some of my morning looking up circumcision articles for you, Bizarro! I am feeling queasy and my breakfast croissant is uneaten :(

You say that it does not effect pleasure, actually there is evidence to the contrary...

Here is a short article, from a reputable journal that you might find interesting. It is too late for you, but since you have expressed the desire to have children I thought I should post.

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/warren2/

If you have any sons, I do hope that you will give due thought as to whether or not this procedure is something that is really needed. Do some research beforehand and consider the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

'Nuf said on that subject: I don't want to be put of my lunch as well as well as my breakfast.

Re moral judgements you state

I don't buy it. Morality becomes an arbitrary concept without God. If it is my gut feeling that I should torture infants for fun, based on your logic, could you argue with me?

Yes, of course I would argue with this, as would the philosopher I was alluding to (Hume) and I suspect you know this...

You have said elsewhere that you are studying philosophy as well as biology. Good. Ignore some of the close-minded comments on here that philosophy is a waste of time. Cooking 'junk' food is a waste of time, scratching your rear end is a waste of time, crochet is a waste of time: thinking never is.

If you haven't had a chance yet, do read Hume on morals, you will find that our reactions to children, our duty to care for them, and our desire to prevent them from suffering are actually quite key...

Happy reading Biz.

956. Atheism is pretentious and cowardly

Comment #48081 by Corylus on June 6, 2007 at 1:52 pm

See now this is evidence for my long held theory that anti-theism (as well as atheism) is justified due to the fact that theists tend to make bad facial hair decisions.

OK, OK, correlation does not equate to causation (and there are some notable exceptions on both sides), but b*gger me, that's picture is unbelievably scary...

The God Squad meets the Village People. Arrh!

957. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48059 by Corylus on June 6, 2007 at 12:44 pm

OK Biz, I can accept that you didn't realise that the author of the article was referring to both male and female circumcision.

However, I am afraid that I am not going to accept your flippant:

It has absolutely no relevance to Christianity however.

a) Are the moral questions that have relevance to Christianity the only ones capable of being asked? There are plenty of moral questions that are not relevant to Christianity; or at the very least there are questions that are not addressed in the bible. We live in a changing world with new technology and new problems. Do the 10 commandments involve the injunctions "Thou must not overtake on the inside lane" or "Downloading films is in infringement of copyright law"?

Silly examples, I give you, but my point is that in order to legislate in today's world we must look at why we make moral judgements and not rely on ancient texts. (You can try this if you wish, but it would involve ditching both your car and your computer and somehow I doubt you will be moving in with the Amish anytime soon)

b) Also, is Christianity the only world religion?

Methinks not on both counts.

You have spectacularly failed to answer my main question so I will repeat it…

You say that as a Christian it is a 'non-issue'. I do not agree. We, all of us, need to work out our moral viewpoints on different issues. You need to ask yourself, as a Christian, would you support the rights of members of other religions to subject their children to circumcision; when their only rationale is religious? Maybe just the boys? What about unnecessary surgery in general? These are very important questions Biz and religious assumptions lie at the bottom of them.

You don't like female circumcision, great! Top marks. Now tell me why. What would you say to a Muslim who says that it is part of his religion and his religion is based on 'reasonable faith'? What would you say to a Kantian inclined Muslim (an odd thought I know but bear with me!) who says that a world with all women circumcised would be a kingdom of ends to be wished?

Sorry Biz, moral reactions are based not on God's guidance, or 'reasonable faith' or 'objective morality' they are based on our guts. Reason is the slave of the passions, and a bloody good job too!

P.S. Yes I have heard of smeg and without wishing to be crude in reply… have you ever heard of soap?

958. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47918 by Corylus on June 6, 2007 at 3:29 am

Biz thank you for answering me.

There are several points that you make that I would pick up on, but I suspect you will have a few replies and I don't want to swamp you, so I will pick out just one: circumcision.

OK, well I'm sure you are aware that circumcision is actually a health benefit, right? I'm not trying to be gross, but I was not circumcised due to religious reasons. It's not an obligation in any way for Christians. I was circumcised purely for the health benefits. This is therefore a non-argument.

I do so wish you were right about this, but respectfully you are dead wrong (I know this because I used to think as you do. This site has taught me a great deal about many subjects, but I have to say the practice of circumcision is something that I have learnt the most new things about…)

The practices of religion and circumcision are intrinsically linked. For example,

Female Circumcision
I used to think that this was a very rare practice, common to a few pagan tribal communities in Africa. I was wrong, although it is not required by Islam, it is condoned and sanctioned by many Imans. This is because, due to the sewing up often involved (I don't want to get gross either, but this is the only way I can express this!) it is a guarantee of virginity. Also, because of the removal of the clitoris it sabotages sexual pleasure in women: it is therefore used as 'tool' to prevent adultery. (N.B. There are different types of female circumcision: all of them gross).

This is directly attributable to the religious mindset that views women as sexual property, and lauds virginity over common humanity.

Male Circumcision
I used to think that this was only carried out on male children with specific needs (i.e. problems with the foreskin) and Jewish boys. I was wrong here too. I have learnt that it is much, much more widespread than that and really common in North America. I'm from the UK and no male I know has had this done, well maybe I do know a few, but they haven't seen fit to mention it ;)

You say that as a Christian it is a 'non-issue'. I do not agree. We, all of us, need to work out our moral viewpoints on different issues. You need to ask yourself, as a Christian, would you support the rights of members of other religions to subject their children to circumcision; when their only rationale is religious? Maybe just the boys? What about unnecessary surgery in general? These are very important questions Biz and religious assumptions lie at the bottom of them.

N.B. I am aware that the 'health benefits' are often talked about. Actually, it appears that the 'health benefits' are hugely over-reported, and some argue, non-existent.

I have to go to work now, but maybe someone else will be kind enough to track down some links for Biz to look at re:

Female circumcision and the also the 'health benefits' of male circumcision?

This is a subject that needs thinking about Bizarro.

959. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47575 by Corylus on June 5, 2007 at 2:36 am

That said, if there is nothing wrong with North American children playing with guns, acting in Civil War plays, etc. etc. and watching G.I. Joe cartoons, playing with the toys, etc. Then there is nothing wrong with this. It's more of the same, and either it's all wrong, or none of it is.

Actually, I can see Spinoza's point here. There is such as thing as consistency. I myself am willing to accept the conclusion that it's all wrong.

If I change my mind about the children thing and decide to propagate my genius - albeit in dilute form ;) Then they will not be given toy guns to play with.

I'm no pacifist, but I happen to feel that guns should be treated with respect. The only time you pick up or carry a gun is when you are prepared to kill with them, and the only time you do that is if you would be willing to do the same thing with your own hands.

Practical point: children playing with toy guns is especially bad in countries when their parents might just have a real gun in a drawer somewhere. Lots of kids get killed by their siblings by accident in places like these. War is not a game and guns should not be produced in "toy" form.

960. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #47571 by Corylus on June 5, 2007 at 2:10 am

Bizarro

I notice that you did not comment on the moral cowardice shown by the Vatican (and people of faith in general) over condemning the practice of circumcism.

What is your view on this?

You also did not comment on the gender equality legitimised by religious teachings.

What is your view on this?

You also neglected to mention of the biblical advise vis-a-vis childrearing. You mention that you plan to have children one day. That's nice.

Will you be sparing the rod?

My point is that if you condemn the mistreatment of children (as I am sure you do) you have to condemn it whatever the theoretical underpinnings behind it.

Faith is not a get out clause for bad behaviour.

P.S. Re gun use: if you believe that just because your government allows you to play with lethal toys in your own backyard you are 'free' I frankly despair...

961. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47447 by Corylus on June 4, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Welcome IJM!
Re:

This does make posting a daunting prospect as I am slightly wary of 'getting it wrong', so if I do please be patient with me.

I have been on this site for a while and have noticed that the members that delight in correcting everyone else (particularly with regard to spelling/grammar) are often those that aren't half as smart as they think they are...

Go ahead and post: I am sure that you have lots of interesting things to say :)

962. TB and the Question of Evolution

Comment #47170 by Corylus on June 3, 2007 at 9:41 am

Huh?

What's wrong with being ginger??

963. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #46935 by Corylus on June 2, 2007 at 9:52 am

Nails

I have never seen evidence that radiocarbon decay rates vary over time, I always thought that the longer period of time examined the more uniform the decay rates as it is a study in probability....

This rings a bell! I was having a snigger at the Conservapedia entry on the Turin Shroud (man, I need to get out more!)I followed the 'carbon dating' link and and saw this...

First, it had not been proven scientifically whether the rate of decay of 14C has remained constant over hundreds or thousands of years: nor has it been proven that it has not remained constant. (Notably, the decay of other isotopes that have half-lives over the course of days to microseconds all follow the characteristic first-order kinetics; hundereds of isotopes follow this pattern, and their properties extenstively have been studied.) Some scientists have suggested, based on experimental observations, that the laws of physics do change over time.

See the following link for the full entry.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Carbon_dating

Now, I'm no scientist, so I am not going to make a plank out of myself assessing this, however, the tone struck me as kinda biased....

964. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #46638 by Corylus on June 1, 2007 at 12:44 am

Anybody else noticed that our trolls appear to be especially vocal around about the time of the full moon??

http://kalender-365.de/lunar-calendar.php

965. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #46469 by Corylus on May 31, 2007 at 11:37 am

Billy

Thanks for that impressive precis of biblical dodginess - I have printed for future reference.

I am always impressed when people know the chapter and verse numbers: I never do, I just know that that sodding quote is in there somewhere :)

966. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #46036 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 4:01 am

Whoops sorry! Wrong thread.

That's what happens when I try to multi-task... :(

967. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #46034 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 3:59 am

I wonder, am I the only person who finds Hitchens so much more convincing when he bothers to shave??

I'm shallow, I know, judging on appearances! But then so do many theists...

968. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #46030 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 3:37 am

Veronique

I was so busy composing my comedy Xmas rant that I didn't see your letter. Yep, the guy you are dealing with is a dangerous idiot.

At the very least he is making a category error: how does one destroy a belief by force? You destroy beliefs with the production of evidence and/or reasoned persuasion.

At worst he is advocating mass murder... there are indeed some loons out there, sigh.

969. Dawkins' Christmas card list

Comment #46028 by Corylus on May 30, 2007 at 3:27 am

See now this, THIS is why I am atheist.

(Forgot the codified and legitimised discrimination and division between different humans beings. Forgot the inadequacies of the 'proofs' of God. Ignore the lauding of the lack of evidence required for 'faith' and the inconsistencies in 'holy' texts. Piffle to the problem of assigning causation to an interventionist God in a world with physical laws…)

It is not even June and already people are already talking about Christmas!

I hate Christmas, and what's more I really hate the run up to Christmas…

The Machiavellian plots required in order to avoid seeing certain relatives; Cliff Richard through shop speakers; naff decorations; whining, demanding children everywhere; mass production of useless plastic tat; 'comedy' singing model Santas… and all while I am still wearing my summer clothes!

Considering decamping to Iran, Ok I will not be able to follow my normal Christmas ritual of getting blind drunk and snoring my way through the second half of Gone with the Wind/The Wizard of Oz/The Sound of Music (one day I will see the end of those films), but at least I will not have to suffer the above.

P.S. Humbug!

970. Group Threatens to Sue Pentagon Over Military Role in Evangelical Festival

Comment #45250 by Corylus on May 27, 2007 at 1:38 am

This unbelievably, spectularly stupid. Have these people given any thought to the possibility that this might be given television coverage and broadcast across the world, including the Islamic world?

Yes, let all have a rousing rendition of "Onward Christian Soldiers" See how well this goes down on al Jazeera. This could get people killed, and sod's law, probably some poor bloody atheist soldier.

Idiots!

971. Aiming for knockout blow in god wars

Comment #45249 by Corylus on May 27, 2007 at 1:27 am

This Somerville woman sounds like Mary Midgely Mark II... oh dear :(

As there are lots of Aussies on board: I'm interested...

I watched TROAE before Haggard's, um, "fall from grace". I suspect this might be giving the whole thing an extra element. Is it common knowledge in Australia what Ted subsequently got up to??

972. Adult breast-feeding sucks, authorities say

Comment #44709 by Corylus on May 25, 2007 at 7:46 am

Interesting take on what constitutes correct and decent behaviour in an office environment.

I wonder if this guy has a take on people who photocopy their bottoms?

973. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44518 by Corylus on May 25, 2007 at 3:35 am

So, Chris Hedges doesn't believe in atheists. Reading Chris Hedges I am starting to disbelieve in Christians! Sweetie you are so very, very close…

To give Hedges his due he is a moderate who is actually doing his best to fight extremism, and this article was at least grammatically correct and literate. However, I find his position logically incoherent. He defines his terms in such nebulous and contradictory ways that his arguments cease to have any explanatory power at all. I cannot add any more to what Wrought and Shuggy have said about his incoherence (well put guys).

Overall, Hedges is a interesting type, obviously intelligent, but I reckon prone to being led up intellectual blind alleys. For example,

I was intrigued to see his interest in the biblical passage "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God". This has always interested me as well: it appears to be an argument for some form of weird linguistic idealism (idealism in the philosophical sense). Hedges appears to be flirting with this position: it doesn't work. E.g. (To use the word of the day) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was… Bollocks!" HeHe. Now that makes more sense!

I go on, but I don't want to bore people. However, I cannot let this one pass…

More important, the tactic of suicide bombing was pioneered as a weapon of choice by the Tamils, who are chiefly Hindu, in Sri Lanka long before it was adopted by Hezbollah, al-Qaida or Hamas.

No, Chris. The suicide attack was actually first instigated by Samson, when he brought down a temple (with himself in it) onto the heads of the God's enemies the Philistines…

"Samson said, 'Let me die with the Philistines!' Down came the temple on the rulers and the people in it. Thus he killed more as he died than while he lived" Judges 16:30

So he destroyed God's enemies whilst destroying himself. He thus did not commit suicide in the conventional way and was not damned, instead he was elevated to hero status for his actions. Ok the guy didn't have any C4, but sod me the thinking is the same!

Overall, my feeling is that Hedges' has made a classic mistake with this long speech, he is showing his hand and playing his best cards way too soon. I think things will go downhill from now on.

Break a leg Sam :)

974. Dental healer finds share of faithful believers

Comment #44137 by Corylus on May 23, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Hmm, maybe he could tell me where to find an NHS dentist taking on patients ... now that would be a miracle!

I know, I know I mustn't ask too much of the Lord.

975. Hitchens on Falwell, Part 2

Comment #43566 by Corylus on May 22, 2007 at 3:16 am

I was intrigued by the reference to "Dr" Falwell… Huh?? I said to myself, but the man obviously appears to have read only one book! So I looked it up. Apparently, he has three "honorary doctorates".

Evidently, no one informed Jerry that to get an honorary doctorate and then use the title "Dr" (unless, of course, one is already one anyway!) is very bad form.

Now, I think honorary degrees have a very important place. They are for recognising and encouraging people whose work spans disciplines, people have made a difference for the better for people's lives and, also, for recognising that some people display astonishing intellects without ever setting foot in a university. Many, many people earn their honorary degrees (I believe RD has them coming out of his ears!) and it is absolutely right that they can be awarded and recognition shown.

However, when attending my graduation ceremonies (I've had several) nothing was more guaranteed to irritate me than (after being awarded a degree for which I had worked my t*ts off) seeing some media mediocrity (invited by the university for publicity and fund-raising purposes only) poncing about in robes they simply hadn't earned.

I am so glad that I was never at any of Falwell's graduation ceremonies: I would have walked out in disgust. This is only beaten by Mike Tyson's honorary degree @%!* me!

Honorary degrees should mean something, dammit!

Sorry guys, off post rant, but I had to get it off my chest.

976. Jerry Falwell's Hit Parade

Comment #43240 by Corylus on May 21, 2007 at 2:17 am

Philip

Don't worry about it mate. I have addressed some comments to Bizarro in the past and never got a reply.

He doesn't want to play with me either :(

Nevermind, I'll live ;)

977. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42297 by Corylus on May 18, 2007 at 3:30 am

I do like it when people use words I have to look up. I can then play at seeing if I can work them into conversation.

Russell "Tribadistic" is now my word for today. I will try not to get myself into too much trouble with it ;)

978. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #42270 by Corylus on May 18, 2007 at 2:19 am

Sniggers...

Looks like the conscious-raising feminists haven't got to this guy yet.

"Men build temples", "Men desire wisdom", "the history of man", "the religious man" etc.

Bad boy, Bad!

Here's hoping some female theists read this and tell Mr Larison to (tries hard to think of a non-swearing four letter word... ah yes) SPIN.

979. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42255 by Corylus on May 18, 2007 at 1:58 am

You're all laughing about men getting off on women on bicycles, but it happens you know!

Senex

Oh would I could subdue the flesh
Which sadly troubles me!
And then perhaps could view the flesh
As though I never knew the flesh
And merry misery.

To see the golden hiking girl
With wind about her hair,
The tennis-playing, biking girl,
The wholly-to-my-liking girl,
To see and not to care.

At sundown on my tricycle
I tour the Borough's edge,
And icy as an icicle
See bicycle by bicycle
Stacked waiting in the hedge.

Get down from me! I thunder there,
You spaniels! Shut your jaws!
Your teeth are stuffed with underwear,
Suspenders torn asunder there
And buttocks in your paws!

Oh whip the dogs away my Lord,
They make me ill with lust.
Bend bare knees down to pray, my Lord,
Teach sulky lips to say, my Lord,
That flaxen hair is dust.

John Betjeman

Plus, I for one am very glad that a theocratic state is doing its bit to fight global warming.

980. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41985 by Corylus on May 17, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Comment by Blods

I decided to opt for reading it backwards from the end. It helped a bit...

Backwards! See, see, now that proves all atheists are really Satanists in disguise! I bet you play all your records backwards too, don't you? ;)

981. Brazil's Indians Offended by Pope Comments

Comment #41785 by Corylus on May 17, 2007 at 2:02 am

They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were "silently longing" for Christianity, he said.

Hmm, it might be relevant to ask what the priests were 'silently longing' for at the time? The gold of Eldorado perhaps?

982. BBC man says 'I was wrong to lose it. But these scientologists are truly scary'

Comment #40767 by Corylus on May 14, 2007 at 11:28 pm

I admire his restraint ;)

I watched this last night. He was responding to an individual of spectacular rudeness, who persistently interrupted, refused to listen, made ridiculous, insulting accusations and, (in a obvious and crass attempt to physically intimidate) continually invaded John Sweeneys personal space.

(Plus, much, MUCH worse than all the above, he obviously wanted to be Tom Cruise)

I wouldn't have shouted: I would have decked the little toe-rag.

983. Global Warming (includes commentary about creationism)

Comment #40760 by Corylus on May 14, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Good video Brian, but I fear that knife-wielding kitten will haunt my dreams! :)

984. The meaning of freedom

Comment #40235 by Corylus on May 14, 2007 at 1:03 am

I'm really tempted to draw a little speech/thought bubble between those two women in the picture, connected to both of them, saying the same thing.... "What the f@&K is she wearing on her head??"

Generally though, I would say the whole business of covering up to prevent lustful thoughts is ill-conceived. What the eye does not see the mind supplies: and inflates. After all, full-blown nudity can be totally unerotic.

985. Defenders of Marriage

Comment #40155 by Corylus on May 13, 2007 at 11:39 am

Arrh, so my confusion is down to my out-of-date understanding of Republicanism.

That makes sense.

Thanks Mr Grape.

986. Defenders of Marriage

Comment #40142 by Corylus on May 13, 2007 at 10:28 am

Chapstick, thanks for replying.

1) I am glad that I am not the only one…

… utterly confounded as to why the principles of small government and international unilateralism need go hand and hand with a crazed theocratic drive.

Excuse my quoting you back at yourself here, but you expressed this contradiction so much better than I did!

I was worried I was being thick and missing some ideological point, but it seems that this is just a weird situation. Ho hum.

2) Re taxation. I agree that I should not have called it 'simple'. It is indeed a complicated subject. My bad.

I think the problem here is that we need to look closely at what we define as a 'product' and what we define as a 'benefit'. I suspect my definition of both is much looser than yours. You seem to be describing a product as a discrete object, which may or may not be taxed. I tend to look at products (especially when they are provided by the state) as instead both as an object and a service.

Lets take the example of healthcare. If you access state supported healthcare while you receive a product i.e. some drugs, you also receive a service i.e. advice on how not to get sick with the same thing again. In fact even if you do not directly access the healthcare you generally benefit from this service being available to others i.e. less sick people about claiming benefits, and possibly infecting people you care about. (This is, of course, an oversimplification, but I'm sure you can see where I am coming from here).

This brings me to the definition of a benefit, you seem to be defining this as increased wealth. In those terms, I can completely see where you are coming from when you say that if you tax a product you do "decrease the amount of people able to benefit", and this is, very often, the case.

However, is this always the case? (Particularly with goods that are imported). Again, take the example of healthcare. Say a government buys a batch of drugs; this government can buy in bunk, at discount. These savings can then be passed onto the consumer. So, for an individual to buy these drugs individually and privately can be much more costly for them than to access public healthcare. This loss is not taken up by the government in question, in fact the government benefits by having more of its populace healthy, working and contributing to the economy.

Therefore, I would argue that if take a broad definition of 'products' and 'benefits' you can see how taxation can be a form of a transaction… I warned you I was a pinko :)

So I think the difference between us is our definitions, and I do admit I didn't make mine clear.

BTW. Don't apologise for getting wound up over taxation. If we can't rant about taxes what can we rant about!

987. Defenders of Marriage

Comment #40081 by Corylus on May 13, 2007 at 3:16 am

Let's get the Government out of our lives and into our pants

This really sums up the sense of puzzlement I feel when I try to understand American politics from afar…

Europeans sometimes seem to be guilty of making crass oversimplifications when looking into American politicians (particularly Republican ones) i.e assuming they are brainless. I really don't think this is fair. As I understand it the Republican Party ethos is simply about minimal state intervention into people's lives, particularly in relation to taxation.

Fine. I don't like being told what to do either. However I would argue that taxation is not theft when the money goes towards a service, which you subsequently use or generally benefit from. This is a simple transaction, which presumably, as capitalists they should approve of. (Obviously, one can debate about whether centralised services are more cost effective and efficient than private ones, at what level you should tax the really high earners, or even whether taxation should ever be used as an incentive or disincentive etc. etc.) What I am saying here is that even a British pinko like me can understand and respect this political view and engage in dialogue with it.

Then, though, there appears to be this jaw-dropping volte face, whereby Republican politicians start advocating huge and invasive state intervention, particularly into personal lives.

I. Don't. Get. It.

Are there any Republicans on here that can explain this to me?

988. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off

Comment #39800 by Corylus on May 12, 2007 at 1:01 am

Hi, I'm Kirk Cameron and my partner and I Ray Comfort come to you tonight...

I knew it, I knew it! I watched that banana video and that's exactly what I said. Nice to see them admit it: hope you're happy guys :)

Seriously though, re Veronique's point about this 'I used to be an atheist line' I suspect that this is not aimed at convincing atheists instead it is adressed more to the undecided. The 'floating voters' if you will.

Imagine someone who previously hasn't given the issue much thought, who is then presented, with educated people using lots of long words debating God (I am thinking more of McGrath than C&C here!). Arrh... how am I ever to make sense of this they say?

Then through the gloom they hear someone say 'I used to be an atheist, but not any more'. Hurray! Here's a smart person who has considered both sides of the issue and has made up their mind: I'll go with that one.

Unfortunately, this ignores the following possibilities:

a) They were never an atheist and they are lying.
b) They thought they were being atheists when really they just had 'angry with God' phase. Not realising, of course, that one cannot be angry with what does not exist.
c)They took on atheism as part and parcel of another belief system (i.e. Marxism) and when they rejected that they thought, erroneously, that atheism had to go too.

Others can probably come up with other possibilities here.

Overall all, whenever I hear the "I used to be an atheist line" I translate it into "I've done your thinking for you, f*!@wit, so you don't have to bother."

989. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39412 by Corylus on May 10, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Question: Was that woman wearing a wig/hairpiece??

Interesting discussion on deathbed statements though, but sadly missed out the following:-

Most optimistic –

"I think I could eat one of Bellamy's veal pies"
William Pitt

or maybe

I've never felt better.
Douglas Fairbanks, Sr.

But the overall funniest (and my personal favourite)

Either that wallpaper goes, or I do.
Oscar Wilde.

Maybe some of these are urban myths, but they all please me!

990. Cardinal: homosexuality a form of prostitution

Comment #39107 by Corylus on May 10, 2007 at 2:37 am

Someone posted this link in a separate thread: I just have to repost it here as a response to this.

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_16225116/opt_/fpt_/c_360/

I'd happily buy the Cardinal one of these.

991. God . . . in other words

Comment #39105 by Corylus on May 10, 2007 at 2:20 am

No Bizarro

This is not atypical of Dawkins: you just haven't been listening.

I would strongly advise his book "Unweaving the Rainbow" which was incidentally published in 1998, way before the whole God Delusion furore.

It talks about the role of science and its 'appetite for wonder'. It is actually my favourite book of his, probably because of its discussion of poetry. I'm a complete hippy and I love poems.

I doubt you will find it in the library at Liberty, but Amazon delivers parcels in opaque brown cardboard just for situations like this. Read it under the covers if you must: you can always tell your roommate its porn :)

Go on… I'm only asking you to read a book, not sell your soul.

992. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38722 by Corylus on May 9, 2007 at 3:40 am

Tintern noted that

A favourite of Catholic priests was a prohibition on dancing.

I couldn't help but think of the following…

Why do Methodists disapprove of sex? Because it could so easily lead to dancing.
Thomas Keneally.

993. Better God-fearing than sneering

Comment #38697 by Corylus on May 9, 2007 at 1:52 am

Sigh. Yet another caring-sharing, happy-clappy effort from the Guardian.

What is the old parlimentary term used to describe being attacked by the ineffectual.. ah yes.. "like being ravaged by a dead sheep."

Perhaps I am being unfair here, maybe this is the Guardian version of a fatwa?

994. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38243 by Corylus on May 7, 2007 at 10:00 am

Luthien

Thanks for the Koran link :)

I have finished the 'good stuff' and am working my way through the rest... drinking already!

995. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #38203 by Corylus on May 7, 2007 at 8:06 am

Bizarro

Re your gastric discomfort… I think you may have a touch of Sartrean nausea coming on.

I recall you saying on a separate thread that you were studying philosophy as well as biology. (That's cool, don't let anyone tell you that it's a waste of time).

Why don't you give old JP a try??

996. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38192 by Corylus on May 7, 2007 at 7:42 am

Now if the objection was that caring a toss about who kicks a ball where is totally irrational I would have listened, but no!

Oh dear, I fear I may get into trouble for that one ;)

997. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38188 by Corylus on May 7, 2007 at 7:31 am

I don't understand. How can you "loathe something far too much to plausibly challenge it?"

Did Pankhurst loathe sexual inequality too much to plausibly challenge it? Did Gandhi loathe British rule too much to plausibly challenge it? Did Mandela loathe apartheid too much to plausibly challenge it?

I could go on, but you get my point… Is the only legitimate form of protest that which is 'phlegmatic'?

I agree though that atheists need to gain understanding. I became one not by reading TGD (sorry RD!) but by reading the bible. I think it should be much more widely read, and not just the sanitized passages that one is directed to. I also have the Koran in my 'to read' pile, but I admit I haven't worked up the guts to wade through it yet. Every quote I have read from it depresses me and I fear it will be more of the same. Maybe I should take a leaf out of Hitchens book and do it on Dutch courage? Even if that does mean that I will be damned to hell before I start :)

Overall, there is evidence that this journalist has actually read the books she is talking about, (and I give her credit for that) but I wonder, has she actually read the books about which they talk?

998. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37141 by Corylus on May 3, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Pedants Corner: So for Michael Behe eye colour is not meaningful... fine, but at least the magazine's illustrator could have got it right...

999. The Damned

Comment #37061 by Corylus on May 3, 2007 at 10:03 am

Well, and there was me thinking 'kaffir' was an ingredient in thai curry! Learn something new everyday... :)

1000. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36876 by Corylus on May 2, 2007 at 3:31 pm

I find it extremely interesting that this article makes two references to the building being used for this court as being a 'former pub'. This alone makes me wonder about the aims of the writer of this article.

I know that patriotism is an illogical position and I am trying hard to put it aside, however, speaking as a Brit who has travelled, I have a huge fondness and love for the British public house. IMHO they are some of the best places in the world to be. You can talk to people if you wish about anything you choose… Or you can sit in the corner with a drink, a book, and a ploughman's lunch and no one will have the bad manners to bother you. I am justifiably proud of these places. I am also extremely proud of the fact that as a woman I can (as long as I show a bit of common sense concerning the town and the area I am in) go into them without fear of being harassed.

To draw notice to a pub being used for "strange, foreign purposes" seems to me to be asking for (either knowingly or unknowingly) a knee-jerk BNP type of response. Dammit!! They are messing with our pubs… Whatever next??

This is not a paper I read, and I believe this aspect of this article demonstrates why.

That said though, I really loathe the notion of sharia courts and law. As a libertarian I cannot stop people settling their disputes in their own way. However, as a pragmatist I agree with Russell that the best and fairest way to stop this sort of idiocy is to hit these organisations where it hurts… in the pocket. Stop their tax breaks and spend the revenue accrued on useful initiatives like teaching immigrant women English so they are aware of the legal redress and equality available to them under British secular law.

B*llocks to the 'these places help women' argument: not falling for it! This rag aside, changing pubs into sharia courts is a step backwards not forwards.