2051. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173238 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Bonzai,





By that argument, we need religion. Why can't people reason for themselves? You don't trust them? Maybe they need to fear hell, or else they would be total assholes.



MPhil,


Do your ideal Euro states use sweatshop labor? Do Europeans wear Nike? All those social institutions still aren't helping the Vietnamese laborers.

But it boils down to conscience. Shareholders can vote for people who will end unjust practices in other countries. And there are plenty of capitalists who object to exploitation.




Jiten,


I have read Chomsky. I have almost everything he ever wrote. He spends a lot of time flagellating himself and blaming every rained out picnic in the world, on American corporate-government agents. It is nothing remarkably noteworthy.

If you read one book you have read them all. I have read about the same Lebanese bombing in 3 of his books. It gets old, hope for new material is always dashed upon the rocks.

2052. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173225 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Bonzai,

Sweatshop is perfectly moral if you look at it from a purely "free market" perspective. Why pay people more than they can bargain for?

No no no no no. Conscious is present in people, as atheists say.

We don't need religion to implement morality, why do we need a government to do so?

2053. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173221 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 2:18 pm

riverrun,





Takfir has to do with other Muslims. As a practical issue, the term Jahiliyya as used by Qutb is used to describe non-Shariah governments in the Muslim world.

Qutb's influence is somewhat limited.


Terrorists had attacked the WTC in 1993. American foreign policy is not the cause of Muslim violence. Muslims have been terrorizing people since Muhammad left Mecca for Medina in the 7th Century. Suicide bombings are relatively new.

And furthermore, why are there no Buddhist suicide bombers? Their country is brutally occupied with no end in sight.

More tomorrow.

I get one week of boredom on RD.net, then I have something to study for and people come with capitalism and Sayyid Qutb, my two favorite things.

What fucking luck.

2054. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173213 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 2:12 pm

MPhil,

But I do think that establishing a law to protect and promote the priority of the basic liberties and their distribution is a stronger means. The management via taxes in this way is a viable option, so is using the taxes to promote programs directly.
Also, the indirect control you propose may be problematic because one has very limited control over the outcome of such indirect regulating measures. Direct measures can be better controlled.

This is getting easier:


1) Constitution
2)Government sucks at allocating capital, manifestly so.
3) Control isn't limited, try this tax law, explicitly say:


"We will forgive 50% of you income tax if you teach in a city with SAT's lower than 1000 on average, 80% for cities with lower than 900."

That is pretty precise. At least I think so.

2055. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173209 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Bonzai,

Whatever problem one may have with socialism, it means ownership by the people, not ownership by the state. The state doesn't represent the people if they have no meaningful participation in the running of the state,

Is that a bad joke?


How do the people own something, collectively, if not through the state?


Why can I not own land? Why can I not own a gun? Why can I not own a car? Because others don't? Is that the best reason... simply because there "should" be equal ownership of everything?

No way, if people aren't rewarded with "more" for their efforts, well efforts are probably going to drop off. The floggings will continue until moral improves!

2056. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173207 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 2:05 pm

MPhil,

That's what I meant by naiveté... that assumes that someone, independent of education, psychological constitution etc can truly fend off any attempt at subliminal or overt controlling of behaviour. Do you know how children for example are targeted and conditioned by television-ads for example?

Oh for shit's sake, do we have to play "That's so fucking obvious"? Yes if you raise a generation of bungling fucktards, then yes they will in fact be bungling fucktards.

I proposed educational solutions. Read those. I can give more. But priority is to breed smart youth.


4th Reich... I am speaking in a general sense about "people" who "may" want state control of certain items in society. I am not referring to you specifically. Any "you"s are directed in that rhetorical way, not you as in MPhil.

In a system where education requires a lot of money that people don't have, that's is nearly impossible. No one's psychological constitution is entirely autonomous.

Like I have said a thousand times over, education should not be relative to financial status. Perhaps we could stop wasting an ass load of money on stupid shit and we could help people get educated with tax incentives for doing so.

2057. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173202 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 2:01 pm

D'Arcy,



State ownership of resources and capital. That is a pretty simple equation. Marx denying that he is for state control does not constitute evidence that his writings did not say this.

Are you one of the "Well Communism has never really been tried".... So there is some petaphysical communism that will work perfectly but has yet to be implemented?

If so, ditto for free market capitalism. It's perfect, yet not yet implemented as such.

Steve,


I don't really care. Like I said I don't like to edit my posts, because when I say something I mean it. If I need to fix it, then I will make another post to fix it.

No offense intended. But it was a distraction. Anyhow Bureaucrates is the naked man on the flag of my dear nation which is Carto's avatar...

:-)


I hope there isn't a hole in the flag!

2058. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173194 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Podaar,




You're right. I take it back.


However as a collection, the numb skulls outweigh the dedicated people like your wife.

I should have made this clear.

I am sorry.

2059. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173193 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Elli,





Thank you. I thought I was taking crazy pills.

I have been saying that fixing racial inequality isn't about changing law school admission standards for blacks, but rather for taking young blacks in poor neighborhoods, and giving them a great education. They are capable people, don't treat them like retarded step children.

2060. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173189 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Bill and Ted,




Loved them.



Harping on my spelling, getting old.


I am typing fast so I can go do something in a minute, and I try not to edit my posts. What I say is what I say.

2061. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173188 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:46 pm

MPhil,

Generally an important point, but also a false dichotomy. and "interest in your happiness" - you must be joking. Do companies try to subliminally and overtly coax you into spending money you don't need to spend to buy their products and services? Of course they do.

No, but if you are unhappy you will take your money else where.

What is your solution? Have the government tell people to not buy things? Are you ready for that, having a bureaucrat dictate your eating and recreational habits. Enjoy the 4th Reich.

People can do what they want with their money. They are free to educate themselves and see through the bullshit. In your model, religion would be illegal, as would sporting events. Neither are useful and both inspired by base desires.

I can't think of a situation where I want the government to regulate my purchases.



Anna,


No. I am saying life long bureaucrats are often people without the initiative to work in the private sector. That or they are extremely dedicated to the mission. And I was more referring to US Govt. and more specifically the IRS.... bastards.

I am sorry. You can punch me in the stomach some time and we will call it even.

2062. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173185 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:42 pm

MPhil,

Look at the facts - How many of those with a university education or with a high income come from poor families? How many from rich families?

That is why the government should offer tax incentives (i.e. forgive federal income tax to some %) for anyone who graduates from a university and decides to teach in a poor neighborhood.


In your somewhat simple analysis of this particular situation, the problem won't be solved. But the government can manipulate the flow of intellect by adjusting tax amounts to favor those who are going to promote equality or improve living conditions. The government need not micromanage this. Make it economically viable or even profitable and people will fill the void quickly.



REALLY HAVE TO GO.

2063. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173181 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Anna,




That is why I said "If this is in fact the dichotomy".


You're cute, but please read the whole post. I left the door open to other options.

I made the first post to encourage discussion and the second to open the door to other options.

2064. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173180 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Podaar,




The competent people (with the exception of the military and intelligence sector) end up in the private sector.


Steve,


The Euro govt.'s maintain a suprising degree of freedom in the Markets. They also have much much much smaller populations.

England 60 some million?

US 310 million, divided amongst semi-independent states.


Bonzai,


No these countries are usually in the grips of stupidity and incompetence. People who worship the local bush and think it is their ancestor, the cow, which provided the primordial milk and burning this bush scares of spirits, are going to have trouble managing the intricacies of farming, economics and medicine.

Countries that lack resources are going to be poor. But resource is no guarantee. Just look at Muslims with oil.


Gotta go take a practice exam be back in 30.

2065. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173176 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Steve,





No. There hasn't and I am not sure there should be. When I say free market, I mean free as to be able to remain fair.

There is a degree where greed can run rampant. But the US started out quite free, then we had the 1933, 1934, 1940 Acts which reigned in greed. But politicians later went overboard and used their power to seize upon opportunities to micromanage certain things about people and institutions. They tax people to death and spend it not on social services (health, which I support, wellfare, which I support, scientific research, which I support) but on a large military, useless programs and wasteful foreign aid.

There is also no such thing as an independent currency. So the currency arbitrage is another issue which could be discussed with regards to disparity.

Not all currencies are valued the same in the market, thus there are issues with wages and trade imbalances.

2066. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173168 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Bonzai,



I don't have time to get into all of what you wrote.


But the business cycle is caused by government interference, according to some economists.


I was never against government intervention to keep markets fair and balanced. But I am unwilling to concede to a socialist system that seeks to beat down initiative to allocate resources to the state.


The question you must ask is, would you like capital accumulating with a bloated and incompetent government, run by armchair bureaucrates. Or by companies that have an interest in you happiness with their performance, lightly regulated by a government that is in the service of the people?


The answer is obvious, if such a dichotomy exists. I think this is possible.

Supply and demand will determine a lot of the market. Scarcity creates adaption. Surplus, the same. If rice gets scarce, it gets expensive and people will eat other things. The balance of cost will shift with this scarcity. No government interference can change the nature of scarcity.

The countries that have had the greatest trouble feeding their people are the countries that are run by socialistic governments.

You will get a real time model of socialism as Hugo Chavez fucks up Venezuela. He will take a marginally functioning society and turn it into a cesspool of human suffering, all in the name of the working class.

Capitalism is imperfect, but so unmistakably better than socialism.

2067. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173165 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm

MPhil,

"to the best of one's abilities" is useless when capitalism sees to it that you don't get to develop your abilities unless you're born into a wealthy family. That's why the a society that accepts the Priority of the basic liberties has to see to it that unequal starting positions are balanced, so that everyone is granted the opportunity to contribute to the best of his ability

That is impossible. Capitalism does not see to this. How then do people, born into poor families, manage to get up the ladder and do great things? If what you say is true, no poor person would ever ascend the ladder.

There is such a thing as social responsibility. Letting people starve in one's society when one could stop this without any significant decrease of living-conditions is willful neglect, just like not jumping into a lake without clear and immediate severe threat to one's life as someone who can swim to save a drowning person. This social responsibility has to be taken seriously.

I have said the same thing. A society will be judged on the basis of its treatment of the weak. Giving them a fair shot at life is best.

In a true free market wealth does not simply congeal at the top. It moves around pretty well. Because you are only entitled to what you earn, and companies do not receive state protection.


As for the rest of the posts, you don't quite know what capitalism can mean. I will address in the following post.

2068. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173132 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Anna,




I second that.



|>:-{o

2069. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173117 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 11:38 am

MPhil,

Capitalism with a completely free, unrestricted market also has no barriers against exploitation of workforce, mercantilism - agglomeration of wealth being power, thus leading to an oligarchy of the wealthy at the expense of those of less wealth, inhumane working conditions and more harmful behaviour. Consider the patent rights in the US... certain genetic sequences can be patented.. if these turn out to be for something like the effects of the penicillium bacterium, the only working treatment for a harmful or even fatal disease, the company who patented this has the power to determine by the marketing of the product (its price effectively) who lives and who dies.

In the free market, patents don't exist. So that is two paragraphs wasted on nothing at all. You can't say "America" and "True free market capitalism" in one breath.

America is a corpotocracy.


As for the wages of developing countries, they are better off than they are under Communist thugs. A lot of what you talk about has to do with valuation of currencies and little to do with "capitalism".

You are correct in noting that natural selection does exist in a free market economy. The incompetent get marginalized, but they are needed to help run the economy.

I am always touched by the Socialists who somehow think everyone from trashman to fisherman to store clerk could and should get a CEO salary. People will always have to do shit jobs, it will always be the same kind of people. There is nothing wrong with these jobs, and they don't define who these people are, they define themselves. Liberty is the right and ability to define yourself to the best of your abilities.

I always find it somewhat amusing (and also sad) that people in any number of countries enjoy the drugs developed by companies competing for large profits in free markets, all the while saying these systems should be destroyed. End free markets, end cutting edge drug research in an efficient.

It is a simple fact, the government, operating not-for-profit can never be as efficient as a company attempting to maximize profits for its owners and/or shareholders. Now in the US, more and more people participate in our stock market and thus reap the benefits of corporate profit.

Corporate profiteering is a canard in and of itself, sinc almost every one of these companies is publicly traded and are responsible to the common man who may own a share of the company. So corporate profit is really profit for anyone who is smart enough to buy into our market.

All I have to say regarding communism, is that it is a subjugation of the individual for collectivism.

"From each his best, to each his need". What an icredibly sad failed ideology.

Collectivism will always fail in any sense, because it refuses to reward the hard working and the innovative. The hard working man, brilliant man will inevitably grow weary of the proceeds of his efforts being appropriated by a bloated and incompetent state and funneled to the indolent and incompetent.

And finally, Germany maintains a largely free market, there are different rules there however. And American capital and innovation plays an intricate role there.

Libertarian free market is:

A pen, with established fences, where people are allowed to play, so long as they do not violate the rights of others.

2070. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173107 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 10:48 am

Elli,





I just wanted to send people looking for a dictionary.

Perhaps it was misued. It should have been a commitment to the coming of a special representative of God to establish the Kingdom of Israel (strange as it is now a democracy, and actually well functioning).

The eschatological portions of religion are Christian, the Messiah has already come and will return a second time for the end of time.


_riverrun,


I must diverge with you over some of Chomsky's self flagellating liberalism. I am a very libertarian person, so I can concur that a reduction in state power is a good (nay, great) thing. It seems odd that such a liberal personality would decry the state apparatus and yet seek a genuine expansion of state power.

Chomsky has admitted his strong communist leanings as a young man. I believe he was involved with the Kibbutzim, which were heavily socialist.

He has, at times, exceeded the mandate granted by truth, with regards to America's actions. He attributes all activities of America to some negative or malicious intent.

I can name many cases where this is true (Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2, Seychelles, Nicaragua, Panama, etc...), however there are many instances America acted in as proper a fashion as such a large nation can.

For instance, Bosnia. The US blocked weapons shipments to Bosnians for some time, increasing the gulf in power between Serbs and Bosnians. This was wrong and stupid, however the US did intervene in an acceptable fashion.

There has also been some issue with Chomsky's potential denial of Khmer Rouge death camps.

And finally, although flawed, I think the US fighting Communism was a worthy goal. Although I think the lies told to achieve near uniformity of acceptance of by the American public are unfortunate. Communism had the potential to reduce all victim states to the situation Chomsky claims to despise... the worship of the state.


He also strongly discounts (and incorrectly so) the role of ideology (Islamic) in modern terrorism. He has sought under every intellectual stone, for instantiations of US causing the events on 9/11. This is unfortunate, because he fails to see the strength of ideology in Radical Islam, yet is all to ready to announce its presence in America with regard to patriotism and the state.

The Islamic ideology which resides with Qutbists, Harbis, Shi'a and many other groups within Islam is exetremely dangerous.

Please let Dr. Chomsky know the following... This goes directly to your point about the potential destruction wrought by large and powerful states...

At the end of his address to the UN General Assembly, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad made an untranslated supplication to Allah for the coming of the Mahdi and the end of time.

The Mahdi maitains a special place in Islamic eschatology. He is the 12th Imam in occultation and will reutrn to vanquish the infidels and establish the kingdom of justice under Shariah Law. Such desires for the end of the world are more dangerous than the potential due to massive conflict.


Perhaps Chomsky can comment on the Shi'a desire for the coming of the end of time and their reverence for martyrdom.

2071. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173095 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 10:31 am

Elli,

It assumes that once born a Jew that the "essence" of Jewishness is somehow intrinsically bound to my personhood - and any expression by me of jewish culture in a negative way is somehow a negative expression of my own self worth. This is rubbish. But catchphrases have a nasty way of surviving despite their vacuousness.

That is the best way I have heard this sentiment put. As if Jewishness is intrinsically linked. Someone I know once said of a Jew who had converted to Islam, still being considered a Jew by other Jews; "Apparently it's a life sentence." I don't agree to the pejorative sentiment, but I do understand the frustration with the intrinsic links.

2072. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173082 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 10:14 am

MaxD,




RM.

2073. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173081 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 10:13 am

Elli,



There are eschatological elements to Judaism.


I remember Sabatai Zvi of Salonica attempting to proclaim himself Messiah. The dogmatism surrounding Israel is problematic as well. I understand the "Never Again" sentiment, but to the exclusion of all criticism and reason, seems extreme.

I think this move began with Henry Kissinger and his contempt for indigenous peoples. The likes of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and others have clearly and unmistakably mirrored the move made by Kissinger.

2074. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173075 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 10:03 am

_riverrun,




Good interpretation of the term.

It is a vacuous term, like much of fear based patriotism is.

It is no doubt the same when it comes to Jews. Once they criticize the dogmas of the larger portion of Jews:

1) Reperations
2) Israel

They are then considered outside the fold. Thus they must be "self-hating".

2075. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173070 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:52 am

Charles,




"Self Hating Jew" is used because the Jews seem to have immunity from anti-semitism. Jews usually have a strong conscious, so when they criticize Jews or Israel, they need to be delegitimized. Non-Jews are easily de-legitimized by "anti-semite", but Jews need a special term.

It is a repellent term because it suggests a very serious pathology, and a knowledge of this pathology based simply on political or religious views.

2076. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173061 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:39 am

Elli,






For good or for bad, the Jews have never had large numbers. This is due to a largely non-recruiting nature. So there was never opportunities to impose the nasty regimes that Christianity and Islam have.

Also the Jews have taken enough shit from people, this has tied them closely to civil rights movements and other socially liberal movements. My fear now, is the mass exodus to the far right by many Jews, will lead to a partial abandonment of many of the qualities I respect so much.

2077. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173060 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:36 am

Too late.




This is disgusting. An arrogant, and deeply disturbed man comes here, posting about the psychology of others, which he cannot possible know.

No doubt Jesus has personally vouchsafed him some secret information.

It goes to show, the damage done by the Mormon/Christian/FCOS brainwashing is not always reversable.

And now this narcissistic attention seeking behavior. His thanks to people is no doubt the same thanks he extends at the FCOS forum, saying he is glad we "have shown him the emptiness of rationalism."

I don't shed any tears, but it is truly pathetic.

2078. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173057 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:26 am

Quetz,




I am trying to refrain from comment. To see the spirit of other posts.

2079. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173054 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:21 am

Elli,







I agree. Jews have been exceptional critical thinkers. Remember the saying:


"Ask 2 Jews, get 3 opinions".


Jews should be proud of such a tradition!

2080. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173053 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:19 am

_riverrun,




I am a follower of Finkelstein's career. I have corresponded personally with him. He has always been as honest as he could be. I don't agree with everything he says, but he always says it honestly.

I have seen his destruction of Dershowitz.

Not only did Duescheowitz start a letter writing campaign to DePaul, he also started a campaign to suppress the publication of Beyond Chutzpah by Finkelstein. Dersh wrote to UC Press and Gov. Schwarzenegger to intercede. UC Press said "Fuck you, 1st Amendment" (basically).

I had a recent debate with people accusing Finkelstein of being an anti-semite and holocaust denier. I pointed out his parents survived the Holocaust and asked for evidence of anti-semitism. I receieved no definitive evidence that he has ever done anything that was in itself anti-semitism or motivated by anti-semitism. Of course that is when the name calling ensued.

The attacks on him are always led by liars and distorters.

The ADL even sent a letter to Georgetown to block him from speaking, saying that he was a "Holocaust Denier". This was demonstrably false, and is evidence that the ADL lies to suppress the free speech of American citizens.

2081. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173042 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:04 am

Anna,




For the purpose of pretending to "rationally" reject evidence.

2082. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173041 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:02 am

_riverrun,






YES! I was just about to recommend The Holocaust Industry.

My favorite is when a camp was liberated (1945) with 100,000 survivors, then in 1999 the commission claimed 160,000 survivors. That is some fuzzy math right there!

Raul Hillberg had high praise for the book, and Hillberg is widely considered the authority on the Holocaust.

2083. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173039 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 8:59 am

_riverrun,






Well said, well said!

Yes it is disgusting to use the suffering for any ends other than justice or the prevention of further suffering.

2084. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173033 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 8:55 am

Quetz,





Do I have to kick some demon ass?



Tyler,



Chuck Norris is only an authority on the round house kick. After that, nothing.

2085. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173025 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 8:39 am

Quetz,




Time of death:

8:33 am PST.


Cause refusing to supply any evidence, blaming this on atheists, then running away.


It was a combination of complications that led to the death of the argument.

2086. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #173013 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 8:29 am

Incredulous,





Of course this guy came here and pretended to be open minded about the whole thing. He played the part well for a while, had people believing he could be convinced.


My guess is that he is a devout theist, and he came pretending to be open minded and rational so he could then say "the evidence" isn't good enough and appear rational.

This is a clever trick, pretend to be "agnostic" and rational, then reject the evidence.*EDIT* This is a subtle form of attack.

2087. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172935 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 7:26 am

Dr. Benway,




Thank you very much for the wishes.


I look forward to visiting Bean Town!

2088. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172927 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 7:16 am

ttheobald,





Imagine no capitalism?


Who said this... while imagining this, imagine:


-No new cutting edge drugs
-No efficient transporation system
-No variety in food products
-No variety in consumer goods
-Imagine drab and boring buildings
-Imagine living in Soviet Russia
-Imagine living in Cuba
-Imagine absolute state power
-Imagine thought crime

Centralizing power, at the expense of personal liberty has never ever ever ever worked. Any economy even remotely socialistic, is only surviving because it maintains connections to America's economic horsepower.

Let's see the Norwegians go it alone.

Socialism is the most childish and foolish of ideologies. But people usually outgrow it.

2089. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172925 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 7:12 am

phasmagigas,





Well after reading Mein Kampf I got the strong impression that he believed in a personal God, who was interventionist to a degree.

I don't know how much reverence he had for the Catholic Church. It seems he viewed it as a rival to his power. The problem was that he was so egomaniacal and narcissistic that he was prone to regard himself as the ultimate worldly authority, at least in Germany.

His hatred for the Jews was racial. He criticized Karl Luger (Social Democrat and mayor of Vienna) for being a religion based anti semite. He respected Luger a great deal, but said it should be racial issues that inspire hate for Jews.

The question is, whether or not the racial hatred is born out of centuries of religious disdain.

2090. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172922 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 7:06 am

Quetz,








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_The_Lounge_Singer

2091. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172918 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 7:04 am

Quetz,




Nick the Lounge Singer, was a famous Bill Murray SNL skit. He was singing in an airport lounge. That is a lounge singer.

2092. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172902 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 6:50 am

Steve,





I would be eager to have your husband come by and post.


Anna and I have incompatible styles.


Anna and I are a strange couple.


-She's short, Im tall
-She's on the East Coast, Me on the West Coast
-She is a Liberal, I am an escaped Nazi
-She is a biologist, I am an out of work lounge singer
But we both love beer!

2093. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172896 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 6:46 am

Guilty as charged.




It is not particularly new. But I am bad with memory, calendars, and dates, so I will leave it to Anna for any specific timeline.

Anna was actually in the picture that is my avatar but she is like 5'0" and I am 6'5" so she didn't make the avatar cut off. Too short. Ha.


Cartomancer,


Or you could choose to date wooter, if you are a self hating atheist.

2094. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172881 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 6:34 am

Tez,




The funny underwear thing is really my favorite!

2095. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172875 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 6:28 am

Tez,




The Yankees are going to have a tough year.

Chen Ming Wang is going to have a good year. A 94 mph sinker is probably the toughest pitch to hit in all of baseball (next to a few people's splitters). Ian Kennedy (I played against him when he was USC) has good stuff but isn't going to win that many games because he isn't demonstrating the control.

Anyhow, most religious whackos have things in common:

1) Curious diet
2) Strange sexual practices
3) Strange treatment of women
4) An uncompromising literalism
5) Anger.

2096. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172862 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 6:15 am

njwong,





Wellity wellity. You have come riding to the defense of the defenseless woman. She had her chance to defend herself, she blew it.

Her original post could not have been read otherwise. She spoke in general terms of Iraqis then referred to them as "BELOW HUMAN FILTH". This was very manifest.

She then lied about the editing, so then when she says she meant "something else", how do we believe her? She lied, so then what? Should we just start taking her word.

As for "undesireables", please save the Mein Kampf guilt trip. It doesn't draw too much water around here.

I do appreciate your comments. And I can understand how you could have seen a more moderate tint in her original post. However, to me, it seemed like reactive and bitter hatred of a group of people. Like I said, there were other issues at play. Any reasonable person would react with disgust (unless you listen to huzonfurst, who thinks I "excuse" such behavior), however the level of acid and the capitals belied such a level of anger, contempt, and hate as to be unmistakable in my eyes.

I don't feel happy about her leaving here. But that has to do with her, not us. She made that choice. She could have said "I screwed up on the whole thing" and I would have accepted that. The constant lying was unacceptable. For instance, Styrer one time launched a nasty invective against me for something I said. It turned out I was justified in my posts, and Styrer said "Ok, you didn't deserve that, be more clear next time." Not another words has been said about it, and we exchange posts peacefully now. So it cannot be said that I am not forgiving.

2097. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172843 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 6:04 am

huzonfurst,

Do you actually think "honor" killings are not a big deal? Where is your conscience?! And btw, I do not support the Iraq war but do believe it's a good thing we're in Afghanistan slaughtering as many Taliban bastards as possible. Perhaps we shouldn't nuke entire countries, but taking out certain hotbeds of insanity such as Mecca might not be such a bad idea!

First, nice Abett and Costello name.


Second, I am absolutely not a multiculturalist. When it comes to discussing Muslims in the west I am accused of racism myself.

When I said racism, it was because someone, talking about Iraq in general "THEY ARE LOWER THAN HUMAN FILTH". That seems like racism to me.


As for the portion of your "post" which I cite above, is ample evidence that you are a total and untiring fucktard. Leaving aside the fact that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about (insinuating that I support honor killings). You thus shat from your mouth:

It's "people like *you*", however, who try to excuse the most atrocious behaviors because "it's their culture."

Please tell me where I said this. Show me where it is that I "excused" this behavior because it's their culture. Show me. Otherwise I will regard you as, yet another, habitual fabricator and liar.

The interesting thing about this board, is that you can go back and block quote things. So if you have any evidence I did this, you can go get it.

You have three options, as I see it:


1) Post some evidence.
2) Apologize
3) Fuck off.


You can go 2 and 3 together if you so choose, since 1 is out of the question, because you fabricated the whole thing.


Looking forward to your apology and disappearence.

2098. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172445 by al-rawandi on April 29, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Bonzai,





Freudian slip.

2099. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172389 by al-rawandi on April 29, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Colwyn,




One time I failed a blood test.


On another test I got an "A" and two "C"s..... Bad news is that it was a Hepatitis test.

2100. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172386 by al-rawandi on April 29, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Phil Rimmer,




I considered leaving the apology. But I simply abhore lying so I couldn't stand to have an apology sit out there, induced by lies.


I agree, time stamped editing and deleting would be ideal That way I change:


"Fuck you Steve"

to

"How's it going Steve"

Everyone will know! |>:-{o