1601. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257090 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 3:52 am

Comment #257085 by Invisible Talker

I guess you could be a stickler for words and insist it's a choice. But all it really is, is a sound logical principle that says you should not make answers more complicated than they need to be. I agree with this principle. It seems that you do not. Feel free to argue against it being a sound principle.

I think Ockham's Razor is also useful because it makes economic sense - fewer assumptions usually means simpler and less expensive experiments!

Another reason Ockham's Razor is useful for theories is for good evolutionary reasons - it allows ideas to evolve by selection of small steps. As you approach what may be the truth, it is better to only change a few variables (make a few assumptions) at a time otherwise you could be way off.

1602. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #257087 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 3:47 am

Comment #257077 by Ian

Dianelos' tactic is one of the weirdest I have ever come across. He does not say that the universe is so complex that it requires a creator. He says that the universe is too weird to be physically real.

From there, he says that the universe must be all mental, and we are all part of God's mind. Oh, and by the way, that mind must be in 3 parts (woo! a Trinity!) and, as God can manipulate minds, and what is in minds is all that is real, the appearance of miracles (such as resurrections) is easy.

It's basically a supernatural virtual world designed to support boring old Christianity.

1603. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257066 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 2:16 am

Comment #257062 by Diacanu

I agree, but I think it is worth considering how someone new to the site might react without knowing any history.

1604. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257057 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #257055 by alan baylis

I agree. Forgive me, Laurie, for having not said this sooner.

1605. 'God as Science Fiction'. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #257045 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:22 am

Comment #256742 by Diacanu

I think Paula does a great job. However, I found this (I hope you will forgive me, Paula):

http://snap2grid.blogspot.com/2008/08/edinburgh-book-festival-edinburgh-book.html

"The Edinburgh book festival is now in full flow and I've just been along with Lesley to see Richard Dawkins (famous scientist) give a talk. All was going pretty much as expected, arrive early, see huge queue, guy with new iPhone (non-famous member of public) behind us, start going into the tent where the talk was being held. We found a seat and sat down. No problem, until this proved to be the very wrong seat indeed when Lesley spotted Iain Banks (famous author) having walked in as part of the audience.

...
...

The talk proved to be an interview chaired by Paula Kirby (famous, er, non-famous? I really have no idea)"

Indeed. It would be nice to know more about Paula's background in the media. She is clearly experienced.

1606. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #257038 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:15 am

DG-

No my basic argument is that the more one studies all the issues the more reasonable theism becomes in comparison to naturalism.

Theism is never more reasonable than naturalism. A non-naturalist investigation of reality doesn't actually make sense. The way to determine what is real (as against imaginary or abstract) is through physical experiment. All physical experiments require physical interactions, so involve naturalistic models of reality.

If you won't accept physical experiments, all you are left with is ontological arguments, and the invalidity of those has long been established, as you need to demonstrate not just that the argument is valid, but that it describes reality. To do that you need ... guess what? Experiments.

1607. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #257033 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:07 am

DG-

Also, contrary to what Stenger in that article says, superluminal motion or signaling has in fact been observed

No. I know of this phenomenon, and it is not neither superluminal motion or signalling. Superluminal tunnelling is a well-established phenomenon in QM, and in no way contradicts special relativity. The reason is that you cannot use it in real time. You can only determine the speed of which the information was transmitted retrospectively, by which time it is of no use for the transmission of information superluminally.

It is not motion as there is no such thing as motion in the tunelling gap of such experiments.

You can only use the information at the point at which you know it has been transmitted. The time between the information being sent, and you being able to tell that it has been sent, is always long enough that Special Relativity is preserved.

If true superluminal communication had ever been demonstrated, especially as long a go as you suggest, then several Nobel Prizes would have been awarded.

Also, you need to pick your sources with more care. I have been following Cramer's work for a long time. He is a great guy with interesting ideas, but hardly mainstream. Cherry picking eccentric scientists is not honest.

Try again.

Also, a very big So What?

Even if all current physics is wrong, even if we don't have a clue about the way the universe works, you don't get to introduce theism into the gap.

To introduce theism you need to build testable theories from the ground up. Theories that accept the fallibility of the human mind and reasoning. Theories that are experimentally falsifiable. So, you are wasting your time rubbishing QM. You need to work on your theist theories and how they can be tested.

1608. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #257025 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 12:57 am

Comment #257019 by Quine

My feeling is that our descendents will simply not understand what all the fuss is about regarding QM. It will be so well established, that worries about its interpretation will look like a waste of time. It may resemble the way we now use things like infinities and infinitesimals in mathematics for calculus. At the time of introduction, there was great concern in some quarters about what all this actually meant. Now kids are taught it at school.

1609. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #257022 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 12:52 am

Comment #257015 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Please don't go over all this again. It was dealt with years ago here.

You are in no position to state what is plausible or not. Your mind and your sense of what is plausible are not suitable as any indications of what is true. The universe does not have to fit into your head (or, indeed, anyone else's).

Even if we are struggling to produce models of reality, that does not give you the slightest justification to substitute your own model unless you can provide an experimental method to test that model.

Your argument is basically that you don't believe current models of reality, therefore God. That is a very tired God of the gaps argument, which we all know of here very well.

I am sorry, but trying to come back with the same tired old sales technique for your virtual world in which we are all part of the mind of God will result in justified use of the "troll" button.

This is a zombie argument - it should have stayed back in the grave in which it was buried here long ago. I suggest we all work to put it back there.

1610. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #257009 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 12:12 am

Comment #257007 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Let me restate this more carefully: To the degree one finds reason to believe that there can't be a naturalistic reality that produces the quantum mechanical phenomena science has discovered, to that degree it is reasonable to suspect that naturalism (which is a particular theory about the reality that produces all phenomena) is false.

There is no reason to believe there can't be a naturalistic reality that produces quantum mechanical reality. That statement does not make sense. There are plenty of suggestions for the nature of quantum mechanical reality which are entirely naturalistic - they simply involve phenomena which we don't experience at an everyday scale.

That there is no naturalistic reality is just not something that can be demonstrated. All we can know is our ignorance of the situation.

I think you will find me a much more experienced debater in these issues that last time you were here. At least I hope so!

1611. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257002 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Comment #257000 by Fanusi Khiyal

I repeat my offer, and I'd be glad if people took me up on it.

"I'll carry on posting my hateful propoganda unless you wipe out posts revealing my association with bigots and supremacists" is not an offer, it is a threat.

EDIT: sorry Diacanu, did not see your post saying the same thing before posting.

1612. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256995 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Mitchell-

You're always free to ignore him. I for one would be disappointed in anyone that even suggests that he ought to leave over this.

I don't think we are free to ignore him.

I think something has become clear, which is that he is not to be trusted an honest presenter of information or argument. He has fanatical views and is presenting them here to convert people to his far-right-wing agenda. What he is trying to achieve is not something that reasonable people should tolerate, which is to work up an atmosphere of panic and fear so as to roll back democratic and civilized values.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I can say that trying to convince us that he simply forgets to edit his posts, so bigoted views "accidentally" appeared on a far-right site, and that he does not read the rabble-rousing and possibly criminal posts of those whose website he joined strains credibility beyond breaking point. He clearly considers us gullible. Even if he is right, he has to take responsibility for the company he keeps and what he leaves publicaly visible.

His attempt to use the dislike some of us have for his posts here as leverage to erase the record of the revealing of his nature on this site is shameful, and I strongly feel should not be accepted. That is too easy an escape route for him.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't like banning people, but on the other hand I think we can neither ignore his poisonous posts. If he continues to post, it will require some effort to continue to rebut his propaganda, especially as he ignores rebuttals and repeatedly posts as if no arguments against his views have ever been made.

I think the most effective action will be to rebut him briefly with a post explaining to newcomers to the site what his nature is, combined with use of the the "troll" or "offensive" button.

Hopefully he will take a break, as recommended by some here, and review his position. But even if he does, and comes back seeming less fanatic, he should be watched carefully.

1613. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256911 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Comment #256902 by decius

What matters to me is the integrity of the site, and I don't much like that someone is using removal of posts as a bargaining tool.

1614. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256896 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Anyway, here's an offer: if sufficient numbers of people want me to retire from these boards, I shall do so - on the condition that they dismantle the last bunch of posts, right back to where this bloody flare up started, and knock the rest of this off. If you're interested, let me know.

I will go with a consensus, but my feeling is that posts should not be removed. As the wise Dr Benway posted when some people were scrapping posts in bulk many months ago, it is a denial of the history of a site, and means people can't confirm what was or was not said. It is a corruption of debate and evidence of debate.

1615. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256872 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Comment #256869 by Titania

PM for you.

1616. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256867 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Comment #256859 by Corylus

I would also really value your opinion.

1617. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #256861 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Comment #256855 by mjr1007

Why don't you and IT become study partners and learn a little something about how formal systems work and what can and cannot be learned from them.

I know much about what can be learned from them. What I know cannot be learned from them is what is present in physical reality. Formal systems can say what is possible, and what is consistent. What they cannot do is provide the link to physical existence. That can only be performed by experiment. That is why ontological arguments don't work.

Anyone with even the most basic understanding of philosophy and science should know that.

Incidentally, acting like a condescending ass doesn't help your case. It makes you look defensive.

1618. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256845 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 3:13 pm

Comment #256842 by Fanusi Khiyal

Steve, when you have an honest reaction, let me know.

Shame on me. I was weak, and was giving you a last chance to avoid being labeled as a troll. A last chance to show some character and decency. You blew it.

1619. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256840 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Comment #256818 by Fanusi Khiyal

Seriously, what is it you want from me?

My honest reaction is I would like you to stop posting and review your situation. Your attempts to wave-away some pretty nasty associations with far-right bigots and possible criminals are both embarrassing and sad to watch. I disagree with you profoundly, but I take no pleasure from watching it. I suspect you find it embarrassing too. You could save further embarrassment by simply keeping quiet, at least for a while.

If you decide not to do that, then I would suggest you avoid any discussion of solutions to Islamic problems. Your description of problems and your knowledge of Islam are important resources, but when it comes to solutions, I don't think there are many readers of this thread or site who would now trust your judgement, as you have shown that you are not prepared to keep to the standards of consistency and intellectual rigour you demand of others.

When you do post, any attempt to call for action against a whole group based on the words and actions of a subset will be marked as offensive, and the hypocrisy of your position re-stated, in that you are a member of a group of political posters and yet you expect not to be judged on the basis of the words of the others in that group, words which have invoked use of gas chambers(*). You have far less excuse than Muslims, as you chose to join that political group - it was not part of a centuries-old culture.

(*) I have to admit that I find the "now you point it out" excuse when dealing with posts that discuss mass murder extremely hard to take seriously, from someone who is so careful with facts.

1620. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256811 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #256806 by SharonMcT

Indeed. I was sure they must be talking about a video game or something. All that suggestion of slaughter. Still, odd game that talks about bringing gas chambers back into action. Not to my taste, I suspect.

1621. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256775 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Comment #256773 by Diacanu

No, but I suspect he will not say he doesn't if it helps in the fight against the Big Bad.

1622. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256767 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Bonzai-

So, he wouldn't mind saying he is against or for same sex marriage, depending on the people he hang out with, if that can get him some support for his main obsession, namely Islam.

I think you are probably right. But if someone is so careless with the rights of others, so willing to concede those rights depending on the company they keep, how can we trust them on any matters of rights?

1623. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256764 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #256755 by Fanusi Khiyal

Even more damningly, I've said this at least three times here. You have always ignored it, and this is the first time you even mention it.

Irrelevant. You are responsible for posts you put and leave up on the internet.

Either you wanted to show how chummy you were by pandering to right-wing bigots, or you just didn't care, and left bigotry in what you had quoted unchallenged. Saying you will fix it "now" is of no use.

By the standards so kindly offered me, I think I'm fair in concluding that you have no problem with that discrimination, yes? After all, you only now brought a complaint, when it doesn't make you look so good.

Classic "fractal" arguing.

I am not posting on a site where general condemnation of transexuals is rife. Anyone reading this site would realise it's tone.

"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing". That is what you have told us many times, and yet you want us to excuse your friendly association with racists, bigots and supremacists.

1624. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256754 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Fanusi-

al, I notice Steve's claiming I'm against gay marriage based on something I have already answered.

No, I did not claim that. What I showed as that you had posted against gay marriage on one site, and then answered in support of it on another.

I was pointing out the inconsistency. What your views are, I am afraid I have no idea.

Sorry, but the "I forgot to edit a post" excuse just doesn't work. There are usually facilities for editing posts on such sites. If not, you can always post a correction or retraction.

Either you left that there to impress bigoted right-wingers, or you just don't care enough about the rights of a vast number of people.

proposing that they could have my vote for gay marriage when my transexual friend didn't get picked on at the Pride.

That is precisely the mindless targeting of groups we have been complaining of. Because some gay men are offensive twits, to suggest, even jokingly, that others should have their rights restricted because of this is appalling.

1625. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256734 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Comment #256731 by al-rawandi

It perturbs me that he is most vociferous in his discussion of gay rights in the Muslim world, which seems at odds with the statement you linked. It does make me wonder if it is a subterfuge for a general attack on Muslims, that is motivated by something other than ideas.

That is what I have been thinking for some time. When feeling is strong enough, and passion about something really intense, someone can end up rationalising even quite inconsistent or extreme views, and not see anything wrong with this.

I appreciate your position Steve, I really do. But I want to be convinced, we must wait for Fanusi to weigh in again.

I understand that. You should research things yourself.

1626. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256727 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Comment #256722 by al-rawandi

Now, I would be eager to hear Fanusi's response, because there could be an explanation I might understand and accept. Also there might not be.

He said he gave a response, in
Comment #256347 by Fanusi Khiyal

If I'm "against gay rights", that kinda begs the question why I'm the one who seems most up on the actual violations of those rights.

That didn't seem like an explanation of the inconsistency to me. Even a strong declaration in favour of rights would not address the question of why post contradictory viewpoints.

1627. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256718 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Comment #256716 by al-rawandi

Did he actually do this, and if so, can you provide a link? Or a repost?

Sure.
Check out http://www.nicedoggie.net/2008/?p=2084
Post 1
and
Comment #256368

As you know I respect you a great deal, so when you say something is so I tend to take interest.

Thank you.

1628. The God Delusion's cameo in season premiere of 'Family Guy'

Comment #256714 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Comment #256704 by Peacebeuponme

I wasn't wearing my glasses, assumed that the "On the Origin of Species" in your post was a link, and missed.

1629. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #256713 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Comment #256166 by mjr1007

Little Stevie (LS) is on a cliff and I say let me introduce you to my invisible friend gravity, LS takes a swing and misses so decides it's safe to walk off the cliff. Bye Little Stevie.

Erm, I don't think you get it. I did not say that our investigations of physical reality are perfect, just that unless we assume we have perfect minds, there is no other way to proceed.

1630. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #256712 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Comment #256708 by Dianelos Georgoudis

As far I understand it (I haven't read his book yet), Keith Ward's argument is that one cannot explain the quantum mechanical phenomena science has discovered by positing a materialistic reality â€" which pretty much falsifies naturalism.

One will only say that if one is arrogant enough to assume that what is true about reality is defined by the limits of human knowledge.

1631. The God Delusion's cameo in season premiere of 'Family Guy'

Comment #256702 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 11:49 am

Comment #256698 by Peacebeuponme

Sorry! I missed a link, and tagged your comment offensive! It clearly isn't.

1632. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256700 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 11:38 am

Comment #256690 by hawt4dawk

It breaks my heart, honestly.

I am deeply saddened as well. I realise I can't know anyone enough to make a real judgement of who they are and what they are about from their posts, but, regarding Fanusi, I think your views on integrity are correct.

This site is largely unmoderated, and I think that is precious. I have never seen an unmoderated site work as well as this. But for it to continue to work it requires people who claim to support the attitudes of this to use it with honesty and integrity. I don't think that stating that one's support for a politician like Palin is partly because of her anti- stance on gay marriage on one site and then stating on this site that one supports gay rights and would probably vote for gay marriage is a sign of integrity. I picked this issue because it has been mentioned so much in discussions relating to Islam, but it could have been any other issue. Fanusi backs Palin's anti-global warming position. If He had said something different here (I have not checked), that would be just as bad. And, claiming that the other site was for "rants" is not the slightest excuse. Often in rants one reveals true feelings that have been kept in check by manners, or political motives.

The problem with such inconsistencies is that you just don't know what to believe, and even discussions about this become confusing. Someone may give a reason for the apparent inconsistency, but once the seeds of doubt have been sown, why should one believe the explanation?

What is one of Fanusi's favorite quotes? Something about "All it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing."

That is key to this whole issue. If one says that, then one is in no position to claim it is alright to say and do nothing when those around you in a group you choose to join and remain part of are suggesting things you supposedly condemn.

People who have not fully supported anti-human-rights solutions have been accused of "bending over backwards to pander to Muslims". That gives us the right to claim in return that lack of full and explicit condemnation of violent supremacist talk is "bending over backwards" to pander to them.

I honestly don't know if Fanusi is a bad fellow, or naive, or whatever... but my opinion is that the drip feed of poison that we are all doomed unless we suspend human rights has to stop. The poison is more effective as it is sugared with what is clearly considerable knowledge of Islam and it's problems.

1633. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256655 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 9:57 am

Comment #256650 by decius

This site is also certainly not about "atheist" or "Darwinist" supremacy". That is an appalling statement, and with use of language that, at best, could be said to be worryingly naive, and at worst an attempt to sabotage the reputation of the site.

1634. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256632 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 9:43 am

Comment #256626 by Titania

You deserve a break. Well done.

1635. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256622 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #256621 by Mitchell Gilks

I agree.

1636. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256602 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #256585 by al-rawandi

You are wasting our time. Your emotive crap is really shameful. Sad, just sad.

Shame on you Al. It isn't emotive crap, it is solid evidence of association with people posting incitements to kill, and of posting inconsistent views, depending on the audience.

Comment #256579 by Peacebeuponme

Fanusi is here to talk to and posts plenty of things ot go on without needing to go elsewhere.

I no longer believe Fanusi is here to talk. I believe he is here to post propaganda, and to attempt to gain credibility for this propaganda by visibility on this widely viewed and reported site, and by recruiting from its members. I have had my suspicions of this from a certain pattern of posting that I have seen in past encounters with others. There is much similarity with Dianelos (remember him?). Divert a thread, start posting your statements, argue in a fractal manner about ever finer details to distract from the main theme. Go quiet, and start again either on the same thread or on another. One characteristic is to simply to flatly deny that your points have been dealt with and to keep asking people to re-post responses, presumably hoping to tire them out and prevent opposition. Fortunately several people have been tireless and very patient in going over the same arguments (such as Nairb and Bonzai).

Note that there are no ad-hominems here - anyone can go back and check the posting pattern for themselves.

So, use of the "troll" button is appropriate.

1637. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256570 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 8:40 am

Comment #256566 by Peacebeuponme

In any case, that someone has taken the time to Google Fanusi and go fishing for comments is something I find a little unappealing.

I think it is admirable. Google reveals public statements made by people on public forums. If people don't want their views to be read in the future, they should not post. If you want relative privacy, don't post, or use e-mail and hope.

1638. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256560 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #256556 by Peacebeuponme

Does that mean when Epeeist posted on FCOS he set himself up for accusations of theism?

No, but if epeeist had styled himself "Brother Epeeist", then one might have started to wonder.

But generally your views should be judged by (and this is clever) your own posts on the internet, and not those posting around you.

I think when we see different views posted depending on those who are around you, that is clear evidence of trolling, either on one site or the other.

1639. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256552 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 8:26 am

Comment #256545 by GoatBoy36

This isn't just any old crap. This is explicit threats of violence. This was not just a lack of response - there was a post in which he did respond, but said nothing to counter or reject dangerous and possibly criminal statements.

Sorry, but I have seen enough.

1640. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256546 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 8:22 am

Comment #256544 by decius

If someone hangs out at, say, BNP meetings, I don't think it much matters how delicate their language.

1641. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256536 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 8:11 am

I think some may be missing what I believe to be the point of Narib's post.

Someone posts:

Unless we start hosing the Saracen savages down ourselves.

With lead.

(If that is an incitement to violence, I don't know what is)

And what is Fanusi's response to that particular statement?

Nothing as far as I can see.

It is a clever and common political tactic. Approval by association. You get to support certain points of view, but you also get plausible deniability about expressing racist views yourself.

EDIT: If that was not the point of Nairb's post, then I agree it was in bad taste.

1642. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256524 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 7:53 am

Fanusi-

I have never made a single racist comment in my life, so the hell with the smear attempts of this lot.

The only person doing the smearing is you. You smear yourself by those who you associate with and support.

You don't have to make racist statements. You just have to stand alongside those who do. You have been doing that.

I have no option but to mark your posts as troll because of the way you have treated this site. I would encourage others to do the same.

1643. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256509 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 7:36 am

Comment #256504 by Mitchell Gilks

Now I'm not calling him a racist, or saying that he hate muslims,

Me neither. But if someone is prepared to pander to racists and those who do hate all Muslims, then I see a valid basis for strong criticism. You can be judged for the views you are prepared to support along with the views you personally express.

This is why I pointed out the contradicting statements on matters of gay rights. Which group does Fanusi really support? The Sarah Palin people with their views, or the majority here with a more liberal and human-rights-based attitude? If you support neither that much, why post in a way that panders one group or another? What is the motivation?

1644. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256493 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 7:18 am

Comment #256492 by Laurie Fraser

(thanks Titania, mind-blowing investigative work, there)

Indeed. Really superb and valuable work.

1645. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256481 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 7:06 am

Comment #256469 by Titania

Your post was deeply shocking.

One way to judge someone is by the company they are happy to keep. That is why I love this site so much, and get upset when extreme views are posted.

1646. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256473 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 6:58 am

GoatBoy-

Steve, so angry young males from Muslim backgrounds who have spent time in some of the many "hot spots" around the world before suddently saying they wanted to come and sign on, sorry what was it you said ealier, make your own way,

No, not really. I would be cautious about letting anyone in who had shown signs of being an angry young man from any background. I did not mean to imply that we totally ignore their existing background.

If there is a choice between the possibility of another attack, and scrapping human rights in order to pick on certain cultures, I choose the possilibity of another attack. I care about our freedoms and rights that much.

1647. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256444 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 6:30 am

GoatBoy36

Monitoring is not hard providing we ensure we enforce laws regarding hate speech and incitement. What we need to check is if immigrants who are in a probationary period have broken laws. I am talking about checking up on people once they have arrived.

And in what way would "monitoring" immigrants be in accordance with their human rights?

It is in accordance as long as you don't do it selectively by race, sex, culture, religion or sexual orientation.

1648. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256438 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 6:21 am

Comment #256433 by al-rawandi

You mentioned "intellectual", and then used lolspeak, which I generally link with cats.

Sorry, just my poor sense of humour.

1649. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256429 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 6:12 am

Comment #256428 by al-rawandi

...intellectual touch!

....

kthxbai.

lolz

1650. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #256427 by Steve Zara on September 29, 2008 at 6:08 am

Laurie-

Well, that'd be a pretty fucking limp-wristed excuse, Fanusi. On the subject of equal rights for ALL people, there can be no equivocation from anyone who's halfway intelligent.

Indeed. It also completely wrecks any case (assuming there ever was one) for suspension of human rights. Someone who doesn't claims not to have a strong opinion (in contradiction to posts on different sites) on one of the major human rights issues of our time is hardly in a position to be taken seriously when they discuss human rights and how they would be protected. We should certainly not trust anyone like that to re-introduce rights after any such suspension.