151. What is science for?

Comment #184120 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Blake1i382003920293049238409293209,
You say:

If proof is so easy to obtain, why is it never presented? I have yet to see any non-hysterical or unbiased reply to ASM.

Now that was an entirely dishonest thing to say. You have yet to see any nohysterical or unbiased reply to ASM.

That can only mean you A.) Have not read most of the replies, or B.) You simply assign anyone who disagrees with you and your good pal ASM as hysterical and biased.

Several posters here responded very respectfully, and thoughtfully.

152. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #184115 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Vergil,
Okay, I can see that.
I think the experience of earthlife is quite an important test sample. Look at the length of time it took for (by no means a foregone conclusion) intelligent techonologically sophisticated life to arise here on earth. I think it may be a bigger hurdle than we suppose. But once crossed you also have to wonder how long technological, advanced civilizations last. I don't know if you saw the link to Michael Shermer's peice on the subject but it is worth a read. Just scroll up to find the link in one of my recent posts.

153. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #184104 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Vergil,
You Said:

If by that you mean that the anthropic principle applies,

Could you clarify what you mean by this? I'm not sure why Rod-the-farmer brought it up either. EDIT: I don't think he was refering to the anthropic principle though but suggesting you were too focused on earth life or human life.

154. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184102 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 3:47 pm

Al,
lastgreekstanding really has no basis to be calling you a hypocrit. I find those people who herald the fact that they are something they call consistant (that is, they have never changed their mind) to be almost deranged. And those people who have these intellectual heroes, infallible as deities, like Chomsky or whoever are clearly deranged.

That he takes so long to post, one can only guess your prediction of this character pouring over past quotes to craft his masterful texts. What I find hilarious about this exchange with Leonidas here is his absolute obsession with you. Did you notice all his insults to me were really just attempts to heap more insult on you. I feel a little used!

Be ready to file a restraining order Al, I think you have your first internet stalker.

155. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184028 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Lastgreekstanding,
Glad the info about the blockquote helped.

I'd like to add that what is neat about the english language is that new words are easily coined. I think unserious is a fine coinage and not my own.

But here dumbass is the rule with un 1. Can be added to adjectives, participles and their derivatives implying not, as in unacademic; 2. Can be added to nouns :as in a lack of: untruth.

There you go. And just to show that I can keep the level of the debate at your level of insulting.
Toodles fuckwit.

156. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184025 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 12:54 pm

I think Marxist doctrine has produced evil men because it believes history to be something than can and will end when the new system comes into fruition. That is it has a definate prophesy and worse than that it is an end that can be facilitated by humans. In any event, don't read me too closely as one of his defenders! :)

Marx may have said some mean vindictive wicked things but he said some interesting things that have a ring of truth to them too. Here I am mainly talking about his critique of religion which the thing of his that I am most familiar with.

I am completely fine with capitalism but it is a system that needs to be regulated from without as well as from within. I also find some socialist policies just and so I support them as well. I think the real danger is thinking one approach has all the answers. Turn of the century (Late 1800s and early 1900s) were not good times and indicated that our system of capitalism desperately needed regulation. We've seen the ills of Communist style socialism. We are just distant from the ills of unregulated capitalism.

Okay I am really throwing my cents in there.

157. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183991 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 11:18 am

Al has hit upon something that I always found strange in Marxist philosophy though this demonization of the middle class. I suspect his is the heart of the problem with his version of socialism.
The middle class is an economies piston. Without a vibrant middle class I think an economy is fucked.

158. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #183984 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 11:04 am

The hell with wisdom teeth.

159. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183982 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 11:01 am

Mordacious1,
I agree the probablity is likely very high. There are plenty of chances, the chemistry necessary is everywhere. In fact I would be willing to bet the universe is teeming with life. My only question is how abundant is intelligent life, of sufficient technological sophistication to be loosing their signal traffic into deep space?
Is that kind of life abundant? It seems there may be severe constraints on these types of civilizations, if we can infer anything from the history of such civilizations on our own planet. Admittedly this would be making a great deal of assumption on our part. That our history is representative of that of other life forms. Anyway it gives one chills thinking about such things doesn't it?

160. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183978 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 10:49 am

Al,
I'll check out the Manifesto. I think Marx gets abused by both his admirers and his detractors. He said some interesting things some clearly wrong, some quite on point.

161. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183974 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 10:44 am

masterslrig,
Um...what god would that be? Allah? Yaweh? Odin my personal fav), Zeus? Ba'al? Ra? LRH? There are so many to chose from.
Wait you said creator, may be you know the ID entity. Perhaps you mean some alien, or extra-terestrial intelligence?

(EDIT: In my list of deities I committed an unpardonable offense and forgot the great Quetzalcoatl. Apologies to all affected.)

162. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183971 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 10:38 am

Al,

These people are punished. People are sent to prison all the time for these crimes. I deal with the SEC in my business. They not only punish the transgressors, they often catch the innocent in the wide net they cast.

But in a socialist country, the state would be FORCED to take care of people who simply refused to work. A capitalist country is not FORCED to allow criminals to run wild. In fact almost all capitalist countries have moved in the other direction.

That is a fair distinction. (EDIT: Though I don't think addressed the point about corporate welfare, which was certainly more germane to the point I was trying to make. In fact it is the only thing I should have mentioned now that I think about it.)I think it could be easily gotten around in a socialist system by penalizing such people and kicking them off whatever benefit programs they were on. (the children of such people could be exempted of course from such measures).

I'm no Marxist, but I won't be laughing at him for thinking up communal marriage. Romantic entanglements don't work very often anyway, but those that try to vary the theme from two to more often don't work in spectacularly bad ways! Marx could suggest such things simply because he had no idea how hard it was to control human emotion. People get jealous even when they don't want to get jealous.
Okay, now I am up to like six cents of input.

163. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #183959 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 10:06 am

About the no atheist children thing,
My own daughter, aged 9, seems to not believe in God. She identifies herself as an atheist in any case. I suppose that qualifies as an atheist child. Though I never labeled her thusly or even pushed her into that direction.

164. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183956 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 9:59 am

Just to hop in this debate about socialism vs capitalism (EDIT and other things economic),

Al,
Unions can still serve an important function even in today's US. I do think they tend to become bloated beuracracies, that come to exist for the purpose of themselves if it isn't well organized and it loses sense of its mission. After high school I worked in several factories and there were places that certainly needed unions. Some companies still bully workers to work longer hours, with fewer benefits etc. Sometimes the collective bargaining power of a union is an utter necessicity.

Having said that certain unions are not necessary, and in certain factories and companies, especially those that observe the employee protection acts utterly unnecessary. In high school I worked at Krogers and came to find out they had a union. What the fuck does Kroger's need a union for? It was one of the better establishments for which I worked as a teenager. (EDIT: And the union was utterly unhelpful in this regard)

I suspect there are certain types of places that benefit more from unions than others. And for worker and management satisifaction to be a real possibllity takes reasonable people not driven soley by greed.

Secondly accusing socialist of wanting to reward indolence isn't exactly a fair charge, nor is bring up the apocryphal welfare moms who bilk and bilk the system. Any system requires regulation, and any system has its cheaters. Your arguement could sensibly be turned against you in a similarly facile manner.
"I don't know why capitalists want to reward cheaters, embezzelars and tax evaders, or companies that need a bail out."

For myself I've no opinion that says one system is better than the other, but both styles blended are probably preferable to pure forms of one or the other. Essentially what we have here, and in the UK for instance, and many other countries besides. The best we can do is look at the kinds of problems people face try to come up with ways to sovle them. This involves trial and error and regulation and enforcement.
Anyway,
My two cents for what they are worth.

165. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183952 by MaxD on May 23, 2008 at 9:44 am

Just thinking out loud here..(or whatever the analogous locution would be for the internets)

Firstly on this article I'm confused by this idylic universe argument to begin with. Hitchens frames the problem most poetically, but what seems to strike anyone who gives the matter more than a moment's thought is that the Universe is not in fact all that friendly to life. I'm not saying life is unlikely necessarily, but I would say complex, even intelligent life and civilizations may be rarer than we think. The universe is a hostile damn place. We have asteroids, comets, planetary natural disasters etc.

I do suspect that there are other intelligent civilizations out in space, probably even in our galaxy, the shear number of solar systems and the availablity of the necessary resources (for our own carbon based systems there may of course be other ways of doing life we've not yet envisioned, or having envisioned it, not seen) make the probablities for life very close to 1. I think.

Perhaps simple life is more common, I suppose various projects in our own neck of the cosmic woods will help elucidate this problem. Will we find life, still plugging away on Mars? Under the ice on Titan? If so that would possibly mean that life arose independently at least twice, but more likely three times in one solar system. That would change our thoughts on life's probablities dramatically. But intelligent life and civilizations that are technically advanced must be much rarer than simpler forms (Shermer has an intersting take on this, http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/08/why-et-hasnt-called/). Just think of how long it took such novelities to arise on earth (several evolutionary dynasties occured lasting hundreds of millions of years, and it wasn't until the mammals that such societies developed after nearly 4 billion years of evolutionary tinkering). Then think of our own current ecological precipice.

166. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183719 by MaxD on May 22, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Al,
Dumbass is what I think, and I think he has it in for you. Sockpuppet? Moron? Ah well...

167. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183686 by MaxD on May 22, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Mordacious1,
I think the definition is fine. As is your final suggestion that all could use some improvement.

168. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183684 by MaxD on May 22, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Tezca! GAMERA! "Now there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time."

169. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183676 by MaxD on May 22, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Mordacious1,
I think that isn't quite right. Ancient Greece wouldn't have qualified and we think of it as a democracy.

All democracy means is that the people shall have a say in who holds power and how that power should be used. Most democracies would only grant that say to citizens. You can quibble about how "the peapple" is defined but once they have a say it is a democracy. It may not be a just one, or a perfect one but it would still be one.

Japan for instance is a democracy, though some memebers (non-citizens mostly Koreans) don't have a say. Would say that isn't a democracy? Or would you say its too bad these people cannot partake of the full benefits of citizenship and Japanese democracy?
EDIT:
Mordacious I don't think I agree with you but if you want to define the perfect system of democracy as one in which all people in a society have 1. have equal access to power (not very likely no matter how humane, or open the system is), and 2. all persons shall have equal rights and freedoms (this is more doable but who the all persons? And how does one get to be one?), I think you have set yourself up an impossible task.

Unless some drastic measures were taken there is no way to insure, or provide for all memebers of a society to have equal access to power. If you could that would be a nightmare because then a great many more people would vie for it. All you can do, and I agree with of its importance, is insure that people have equal rights and freedoms.
Any way those are my off the cuff thoughts.
DOUBLE EDIT:
It would appear that Al and I are on the same page on the issue of democracy and its application.

170. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183671 by MaxD on May 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Al, I am already sold on the Wiki as a good part of info gathering. Hopefully everyone caught that I was joking when I asked if I should use it. If not, you will note I defended Wiki too.

171. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183648 by MaxD on May 22, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Al,
I will look up those sects and do some reading.
Thanks.

Should I use Wikipedia or Britanica.....?

172. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183633 by MaxD on May 22, 2008 at 11:52 am

TCT,
I've read, and I have no idea how likely it is to be true, that converts are some of the worst with regard to radicalism.

Any thoughts? Al, TCT? Lastgreekstanding (are you a recent convert?) Just curious.

173. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183628 by MaxD on May 22, 2008 at 11:44 am

Al,
Leaving suicide bombing to one side why not broaden the charge and note that not only do the radicals enjoy using young people as bombs, but they also enjoy putting them in harms way to get at vehicle columns. Send a woman or a child out into the street and the convoy will of course slow down, at which point you are in an RPG party. This is ethically a little better, I suppose than using them as bombs but it still displays a callous disgregard for the life of the bait.

174. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183621 by MaxD on May 22, 2008 at 11:37 am

Lastgreekstanding,
(Just go to the posting guidlines to learn how to blockquote. They are right by the phrase "Post a comment."

Regarding wikipedia, again, I am repeating what the founder of wikipedia said. You linked me to one article, so what? I can link you to articles that prove my point. Example: The article on the Greek language is very disappointing, including a long contribution by a wannabe scholar who has no clue on what he's talking about---absolute rubbish. It's still there after several years. No one is bothering to correct him. Why? Because no serious person (except you and al-rawandi, apparently) takes it seriously. What can I tell you. If you want to use it, go ahead. I am not stingy. I'd rather dish out the money and get the real McCoy---i.e, the REAL Britannica. And if I say it sucks, it's just my opinion. You can believe otherwise, for all I care. All I can say is 'GOOD LUCK'.

Okay I guess this ends our dialogue. You do not have a clue as to how to argue or how to understand a point. Reducing people to dupes or idiots which is what your language implies isn't an argument. It is arrogant. You can do that sort of thing on this site but it helps to actually have a point, or evidence.

On certain subjects wiki is very good. Much of its science content is good (as the article I linked you too, you know from scientific journal Nature implied), it is an excellent source to find quick links to primary sources etc. My suspicion as to why the Greek language page is bad, if indeed it is (are you a linquist?), is because nobody gives a shit about greek.
And why should they?
If you think the language page is bad sign on and become an editor. Straighten that shit out for the two people who care about Greek that doesn't involve gyros and that delicious cucumber yogurt stuff. In any event your anecdote is not even germane to my point. Of wikipedia I said that it wasn't perfect, boasting an error rate comparable to any standard encyclopedia set you could find. I said its science content was generally good.

I do take Wikipedia seriously a tool that can give me a quick background on a subject and then I proceed from there. Are you implying that because I use this internet apparatus in such a way that I am, somehow, unserious? Well...
Fuck.
You.

You may want to examine yourself a little more closely before leveling charges of being unserious, or of hypocricy.

175. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183324 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 9:54 pm

Lastgreekstanding,
Sorry about Wiki you are just wrong. Just plain wrong. Its an okay encyclopedic site, for the most part. It really really is. You can read about it, but I think you'd rather just insult AL-rawandi.
And saying,

Hardly. It's more for lazy teenagers, like al-rawandi.

doesn't make it so. I linked you to just one article that demonstrated that Wikipedia was useful, and as good as most encyclopedias on science issues. That's one article among many. Now you can keep saying it sucks but we both know why you really don't want to admit my point.
Admitting that Wikipedia is okay would hurt your rather unfunny attacks on Al.

Lastgreekstanding,
Could you maybe use the blockquote code so your posts are clearer.

Laters

176. Proving ID is Creationism

Comment #183322 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 9:39 pm

People are catching on. Here is two minutes on the subject by Henry Rollins. It is spot on.
Enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QMFQ22erKI&feature=related

177. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183292 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Guys I am almost convinced he is a huge faker.

178. In God's Name

Comment #183287 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Frankus,
My ornithology professor has a list of birds that have shit on him. I bet is longer than the good christian guy on this program. I wonder what lesson, or message God most often delivers in this bizarre way.

I imagine the following would be a terrible time to try that technique,
Bird poops on guy crossing the street.
The message?
You are about to be hit by a Mac truck.
Reciever of message looks up to yell at the offending bird and
BLAMO Message missed in a big way.

179. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #183272 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 5:25 pm

CalvalryGuy seems like a driveby poster. I don't think he will be responding.

180. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183271 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Colwyn Abernathy,
Of course Odin inspired Simonson to tell us the great truth of Stormbreaker and Beta Ray Bill. This is obvious! :)

Starspangled Eagle, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that the monotheistic characters wouldn't be on the side of guys like Odin, or Thor or Beta Ray Bill as Marvel has envisioned them. I think Mohammy or Yahweh would be bad guys. Or at least unpleasant characters.

181. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183131 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 12:35 pm

SRWB,
My bad. My bad.
I think Beta Ray Bill guards the gates. (Don't know who Beta Ray Bill is? Its time you learned, he is the latest entry into the Norse mythology. Google him, or wiki him.)
Enjoy!

182. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183108 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 11:56 am

Clearmind before you wooter further,
read carefully Bonzai's post. And read my posts that say the same thing.

I agree that one normally shouldn't apply contemporary moral standards to the ancients. But Mo's followers claim that his message is eternal and that he was an example for all mankind, rather than just a historical character who had put up a ventriloquist act. Well in that case, yes, it is completely justified to judge him based on the moral standard of civilized people rather than that of the savage nomads of his time. God's alleged "perfect creation" ought to be held to a much higher standard than his contemporaries.

Clearmind, you should always think before you wooter. this evolvins way beat you to much logics always SUPREME not like mohammy logics which amore 9 years oldens for lovin on.

183. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #183105 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 11:50 am

PJG,
Could be dyslexia. Maybe he thought the l was an n and I could see how that might be constued by the general public as violating obscenity laws I guess. However I doubt it. I may see if anyone is protesting the Cult of Scientology nearby me. I think I might go protest them.

184. In God's Name

Comment #183097 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 11:39 am

"By your own confession you're a lying, thieving adulterer." Christian nut.
"Right that'd be me then." Dispatches interviewer.
HA! Brilliant BBC guy.

"I don't want my grandchildren [20 of these] being told it is alright to get shit on yer penis." Another Christian nut. (How many heterosexuals do you think engage in backdoor action? How many christians do this?)

What a fascinating sociology project these people would make.

185. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183090 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 11:32 am

Also clearmind whined,

Insulting 1. 5 billion people's prophet is a very big insult

True, but not to the 1.5 billion people. Not really.

186. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183088 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 11:28 am

Clearmind barely manage this coherent thought,

Still you are talking about six years old creepy stuff that western sick minded people do it.

Cleary, cleary baby, this is the whole point of my last post. Mohammy was no different than any of us, he was just charismatic enough to dupe some dupes into believing the utterly dupey. He married this girl when she was six, tore it up when she was nine. Saying sick people in the West do this sort of thing too does your case absolutely no favors. For one it is anomalous, that is we here in the enlightened West consider it a form of illness coupled with criminal (people doing it typically know it is wrong, but they seek no help and carry out their misdeeds anyway). In the West we prosecute people such as Mohammy. Do you realize you have just lowered your prohet's standing when you do this.
We say, "Mohammy was a pedophile for knocking out a 9 year old. This is criminal exploitation, rape blah blah blah."

You say, "Well people do that in the west too." You don't seem to realize that we hold such people in utterly low regard, infact we imprison them when they get caught.
So don't you think we should imprison Mohammy too?
I do. Please call him down from Valhalla so we might incarcerate him, get him put on sex offender watch lists, and generally make it harder on him for his crime. What do you say cleary?
Mohammy is not evolvins girls of 9 backwards, rump hairless.
HA!

187. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #183056 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 9:48 am

Stephenray,
Getting fried by cosmic rays only turns you into a stretchy guy, or flamey guy, or a girl who can turn invisible (if you are a female prior to cosmic ray exposure) or a super tough orange rocky guy.

Stan Lee and Jack Kirby worked out all the equations.

188. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #183054 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 9:46 am

Mitchell said:

Well, we have to ask a question of how did we get here? What's this universe all about? What's our relationship to it? And humans have been asking that question forever. We still don't have a final answer to what is this nature of the universe we live in and how did it come to be. And part of that involves the question of a deity. I think the answer is still to be found.

I think in someways these questions, as so often asked are more or less useless because they assume we are somehow and important part of the universe.
Its a solipsistic question that says more about the person asking it than anything else.
Supposeing something forwhich there isn't even a scintilla of proof also seems like a great way in which to spin wheels.

189. What is science for?

Comment #183051 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 9:34 am

Al-rawandi,
What a wonderful quote from Eisenhower.

ASM,
Keith needs no defenders but if you can't see how this

That's an easy one, o Elli of the beauteous avatar, daughter of Jewish Israelis, who has interviewed numerous "Holocaust" survivors: most of them didn't die, hosanna and hallelujah

. might come across as dickish then you may be the most obtuse person I've ever met online, no wait that honor is clearmind's.
Again note the lack of admitting that the other side has a point. What you say is, Oh I didn't mean anything by it, I was trying to be funny, sorry about the confusion.

Clearly though you were trying to impeach her creds by dragging her Israeli heritage into the matter.

About this powerful Jewish cabal that could clearly orchestrate a massive snatch and grab of wealth, land and power, or at least participate in it in a meaningful way. Care to give me any particulars about how such a reviled group, with little political power, managed such an impressive feat?

190. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183048 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 9:20 am

Clearmind,
This is the thing about saying, as your cut and paste jobs implies, that we ought not judge these prophets of God, these minor deities, by the moral standards of the modern West.

My question is why not? SHouldn't such beings as they be moral beyond the time in which they live? The case against Mohammed is very strong indeed as a being as powerful as he ought to have known that it wasn't right and should have led by example. This historical context thing is just a smokescreen to try to conceal some very real flaws in the image of prophets and holy men across religious tradition. It doesn't work when one gives the matter more than a moment of thought, the smokesceen simply disapates as quickly as it formed.

Further dragging whatever relationship Anna and Al have into a rebutal of the imagined slight of offending 1.5 billion muslims is really just dumb. Let your god, and his prophet defend themselves. They shouldn't need your help, or the low attacks which are not in anyway accurate or germane to the discussion. You are trying to be deliberately offensive.

191. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183031 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 8:57 am

Clearmind,

First still you did not quit your habit: Smearing and distorting and I have to ask you the same question whatever you say about the prophet, DO YOU DO THE SAME AFTER YOU ARE DONE WITH ANNA BANANA SO YOU KNOW IT AS THE BLIND MEN ANALOGY REFERS. This is so pathetic. Self description of athesits' MIND

I'm not entirely sure what innuendo you were trying to make here, other than it was intended as crudely sexual. This seems a bit low, even for you.
The good prophet seems to have consumated his union (that is had sex) with a nine year old girl. That makes him a piece of shit. I don't care if it was legal at the time. Because it seems like whatever Muhammed said was legal, was legal. A bit of cheat eh?
Don't let the stop you from defending the action though clearmind.

192. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183024 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 8:49 am

Peacebeuponme,
That was come unpleasant reading.
Er...thanks.

193. What is science for?

Comment #183013 by MaxD on May 21, 2008 at 8:28 am

ASMarques,

Please just go ahead an say that nothing anyone can say, here or elsewhere, will convince you that Germany is culpable for atrocities against Jews.

You don't address anyone's reasonable points, you just link to IHR, and other sites of dubious crediblity and call out you familiar notes. You engage in sophistry over semantics. Does eradicat mean eradicate? Or exterminate mean exterminate? What does the word Holocaust even mean? These are your evasions.

Now were you a serious debator and historian I would find such a search for a definition deeply important and as it happens necessary. But for you, and the rest of the deniers it simply boils down to moving the goal posts around every time the other side is about to score a goal.
Shoddy pool. By that I mean intellectually dishonest.

You have yet to say anything like, "well that is a really interesting point, but here is why I think it is wrong." In fact you don't grant any one holding a view contrary to your understanding as reasonable at all. In fact it is entirely reasonable to believe the Holocaust happened. (The position isn't all that complex. Round up the Jews and any others that might be thought to taint the purity of German blood and kill them. But think about the massive conspiracy you want to propose for just a second and you will see which one has the most parsimonious framing.)

That you can't even grant that the other side is actually being reasonable, and that you resort to snideness, like what you have done with anyone you debate, from Elli, to me, to Al makes you a member of a "faith-based community." It is why people get fed up with you. I've seen it happen on two threads now and it sounds like it has happened on more. I suppose your style provides you an emotionally satisfying safety net. You can always walk away thinking "what idiots. They cannot defeat my arguments so they call me names, or other invective. Fools." In this internal analysis you must do everytime I doubt you ever reflect on the counter arguments.

EDIT: Left out of this post, but probably important. Your theory ASM seems to hinge largely on a powerful component of the conspiracy against Germany to be fomented by the Jews themselves. Does that really make any damn sense whatsoever? The general prejuidice against the Jews doesn't really abate until after the events of WWII come to light. Jews, my friend, were not popular anywhere in the west. So how, and where and why are the Jews able to generate the political capital to make such a move? This seems to be a gigantic hurdle for your argument.

194. Pope: God Will Punish Drug Dealers

Comment #182725 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 10:44 pm

You know what would punish dealers more? Just legalizing the stuff.
Bingo. You remove the blackmarket and all the attendant bullshit that accompanies it.

There you go.

195. What is science for?

Comment #182718 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Teratornis said:

If you assume people think logically, and have the mental capacity to understand scientific predictions about the consequences of their actions. Most people appear perfectly willing to wreck the world for their children and grandchildren. What difference would it make if they expected to stick around?

I am in total agreement with you. But i think people are actually starting to realize that we are handing our children an inordinate amount of bullshit with which to deal. I think most of the US public for instance does want more serious environmental protection, hence neo con morons like Bush have to pay lipservice to the notion while also trying hard not to do much about it.

196. What is science for?

Comment #182715 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Teratornis,
I've long said that the environmental problems were the tragedy of the commons writ large.

I'm sure i heard it somewhere but it is really just begging to be used.

197. What is science for?

Comment #182699 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Teratornis,

If billions of people believe they are immortal, what will change if science makes it official

Only the area where they would spend that eternity, thus a greater concentration on our little spaceship earth would happen more immediately.

198. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #182675 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 8:36 pm

I think Styrer is right.
RDF needs some medals to give out!

199. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #182673 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 8:29 pm

ASMarques,
Hmmmm. IHR. I can't say that is a source I trust too terribly much. But okay.

You are equivocating. And attributing to me sentiments that I don't have.

First things first. Simply saying hey look at this attrocity happened here, therefore you have no right to criticize what happened here. Bullshit. I am more than happy to be critical of My Lai massacre. Though I will say something that happened there that didn't in Germany was that some soldiers tried to stop it. Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson Jr. told his men to open fire on any US soldiers who fired on civilians. 3 other soldiers recieved medals for saving lives at My Lai instead of taking them. I am happy to condemn the westward expansion for the callous way in which it dealt with the native Americans. I see you seem to be a bit happy with our history of those actions too. That is of course no surprise.

Now as to the laws against saying something goofy like the Holocaust (systematic extermination of the Jews etc) did not happen don't say I am calling for it. Or that I think David Irving should be in jail or fined. I don't think Ernst Zundel should be in jail either. Or any of the revisionists. I think you guys are wrong about the main point, that there was a systematic attempt to eradicate and exterminate the jews, but that is fine.
I'd not have the deniers silenced. You guys might after all be right (though you've not come anywhere near proving that). I benefit from listening to ideas that are strikingly different from my own. Sometimes the dialectical approach does make one more appreciative of the ideas and grant more insight on the topic. And in any event, I understand how free speech works, and I don't want mine trampled, and it could be my ideas that become anti-vogue next.

200. What is science for?

Comment #182667 by MaxD on May 20, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Stryer,
I don't know if you saw but I posted a quote from a book called Tales from the Holohoax that he seems to parrot almost perfectly. I started suspecting tha the was doing exactly the kind of thing you accuse him of doing. Namely quoting, with out attribution, other "thinkers."