201. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188563 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 7:54 am

1018. Comment #188548 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:42 am

Can you ethicallly justify homosexual rights? If you can, explain that to the rest of the world that doesn't (they apparently have different ethics than you). Want to use science now?

What do you think we have been talking about for the last 1000 posts? The price of fish?

Any ethical system based on the notion that humans are autonomous individuals who are entitled to pursue their own interests so long as it doesn't harm anyone else must, ultimately, conclude that it should not prohibit homosexuality, unless "harm" is established. Which it isn't. That last bit is a scientific question. The rest is an ethical one.

I am not going to be drawn into an argument about why this is the best ethical system, simply because moral relativism is the only way you can make any of your ludicrous assertions stick.

202. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188543 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 7:39 am

1010. Comment #188540 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:33 am

If you rely on science to champion gay rights then you cannot deny science to bestials for the same rights.

It has already been explained to you that the primary argument for gay rights is an ethical one. The scientific arguments are deployed only to knock down the spurious scientific "reasons" for not allowing them.

Please answer Quetz's question, lest he smites you.

203. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188541 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 7:36 am

1002. Comment #188532 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 7:26 am

Just to get around Appleby's rather boring point, if you were roofie-raped, I'd contend that it would do great harm, if only psychologically.

One of my college classmates used to argue* that rape which didn't result in a pregnancy was only different from other non-fatal physical assaults because of the irrational stigma attached to being raped. Therefore treating it differently gave legal sanction to the irrational stigma; therefore the distinction should be removed.

Not exactly a winning political view, but IMO a more interesting argument than those being put forward by Appleby.

* It should be added that this same person argued that his dalliance with a female did not imply that he was anything other than 100% gay, because she looked like a boy when he picked her up. We tended to treat his arguments with some scepticism.

204. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188527 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 7:22 am

985. Comment #188515 by al-rawandi on June 4, 2008 at 7:05 am

Or would you mind your girlfriend getting slammed by an elephant dong?

Looks like I have a new wingman.

Now, scientifically, should I tell my wife or not?

205. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188524 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 7:20 am

992. Comment #188522 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:09 am

Then ethically, perhaps it can be argued that homosexuality should be outlawed. Wait... in many parts of the world it is! Maybe their ethics are different. But wait... yours is the correct one, right?

Ooh, moral relativism. How original.

206. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188514 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 7:05 am

980. Comment #188507 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 7:00 am

What does "scientifically valid" mean?>

Valid according to the scientific methodology. Not ethics or some other ambiguous shit you are trying to base laws on.

Oh dearie dearie dearie me.

Firstly, I don't remember anyone claiming that there was such a scientific reason for prohibiting bestiality. All the proper scientists here would explicitly disclaim such a notion. Science does not say what ought to be done. It only describes what is.

Laws are always based on "ethics" or "some other ambiguous shit". Where the hell else do you think they come from? Sent in an e-mail from heaven?

The argument we've been having is an ethical one. The fact that you don't seem to understand this explains quite a lot of your posts.

207. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188506 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 6:59 am

970. Comment #188497 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 6:52 am

It's funny because I hardly considered you guys conservatives.

Are you the same Appleby who spent the last few days banging on about the "status quo"? Do you want to borrow my dictionary?

208. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188504 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 6:57 am

970. Comment #188497 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 6:52 am

There really is no scientifically valid reason to outlaw bestiality.

What does "scientifically valid" mean?

209. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188494 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 6:47 am

963. Comment #188488 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 6:38 am

I think the question of what to do should depend on the individual. If they are perfectly happy the way they are then maybe there is not a lot that needs to be done. But if they are missing out on the chance of a fulfilling relationship with intimate human contact, then maybe there are treatments that can help.

Specifically with beastiality, there is also the welfare of the animal to consider.

So what you're essentially saying is that it's not the description but the outcome that matters. I can live with that. It would follow that if someone wants to have sex with their sofa, then that's no one's issue but their own, right?

964. Comment #188490 by qomak on June 4, 2008 at 6:41 am

Who says horse racing isn't exploitative? Do you know how many horses suffer injuries during those horse races?

How much bearing does the answer to the second question have on the question of "exploitation"?

210. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188484 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 6:34 am

Re the vegetarian thing:

Veal is essentially a side-product of milk production. Male dairy calves will never grow up to be milk-producing. So they are slaughtered.

You can either:
(a) kill them at birth; or
(b) raise them for veal and slaughter them at around 6 months.

Which is better? A short life, or a very short life?

Of course the vegan answer is to dispense with milk production altogether. But then you're faced with a different question: is it better for the cow to be raised and milked, or not to live at all?

211. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188481 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 6:27 am

951. Comment #188473 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 6:16 am

That's not for me to decide. There are plently of psychiatrists out there who specialise in unusual sexual practices. Objectophilia being one of the more interesting ones.

OK, let me rephrase. How do we decide which penchants constitute mental illness and require treatment, and which don't?

This isn't really a psychiatric question. It's a social one. Psychiatrists can (possibly) explain the pathology and likely outcomes, but the question of what to do about it is not a scientific one.

212. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188469 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 6:09 am

945. Comment #188466 by Peacebeuponme on June 4, 2008 at 6:05 am

That said, a penchant for this activity [bestiality] is indicative of some sort of mental problem, which should be treated.

How do you decide which activities indicate a mental problem which should be treated, and which are merely eccentricities to be ignored?

213. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188440 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 5:24 am

913. Comment #188426 by Appleby on June 4, 2008 at 5:13 am

Nobody has realized the hypocrisy some homosexuals are demonstrating here. How can you argue against bestials in the same holier-than-thou way that heterosexuals were once arguing against you? You have invoked science and reason to win your rights. Do you really think bestials cannot do that too? I have yet to hear one, valid, scientific argument that is grounds for not granting bestials equal rights as the rest of us (heteros and homos alike). And I've already given you so many arguments bestials could use to support their case (and I'm not even one of them).

Let's be clear about this. The principal argument for granting equal status to homosexuals was that what consenting adults do is none of anyone else's business. The typical counterargument was that prohibitions were necessary "for the protection of others" in various invented respects - for example that it was somehow psychologically harmful; or that it was "unnatural". Science was deployed to demolish these.

The "naturalness" of homosexuality was not, of itself, the reason.

Proving that it's natural for some people to want to shag a goat does not actually give you a right to shag a goat, any more than we accept that wanting to shag a six year old gives you a right to shag a six year old.

EDIT: You threw out the "consent" and "suffering" arguments. That does not establish their invalidity. You are first going to have to show that eating meat is wrong. Go.

214. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem

Comment #188428 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 5:15 am

Barry Pearson - Good find.

It seems to have been fairly heavily cut. Does anyone have a source which shows that it's not misleading?

215. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188416 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 5:00 am

49. Comment #188359 by irate_atheist on June 4, 2008 at 2:37 am

"If the law supposes that...the law is an ass - an idiot." Mr Bumble, Oliver Twist

But it is not Buridan's ass.

216. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188412 by hungarianelephant on June 4, 2008 at 4:41 am

897. Comment #188405 by Quetzalcoatl on June 4, 2008 at 4:07 am

perhaps he believes that "Meow" qualifies as consent?

Or that the flailing claws indicate that she's totally luvvin' it.

217. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188177 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 9:55 am

Sometimes I wonder whether al-rawandi is chanelling Cartman.

Screw you guys. I'm going home.

218. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188150 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 9:22 am

752. Comment #188132 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 8:52 am

I still think they'll be happier in their own communities in the same way as they are happier in their own bars.

In my experience, gay people like gay bars because they can be reasonably sure that they can be themselves without some strangers indulging in the testosterone-induced, alcohol-fuelled male aggressive chest beating that you so often get in other city bars on a Friday or Saturday night. As a straight male, I like them for much the same reason. Also, the bottled beers tend to be slightly better.

The gay "community", however, is just a construct of political convenience, and deeply patronising.

219. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188114 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 8:35 am

Rachel Holmes

Your heart is pure. I, on the other hand, couldn't resist the cheap gag.

And this one is asking for the treatment too:

741. Comment #188112 by Cartomancer on June 3,

Now where did I put my gladius...

Must ... fight ... urge ...

220. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188103 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 8:27 am

732. Comment #188100 by Rachel Holmes on June 3, 2008 at 8:17 am

What distinguishes my loving, monogamous, mutually supportive committed relationship with my partner from goat-fucking?

Gee, its a toughie.

I've never heard it called that before.

I'll get my goat. Sorry, coat.

221. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188090 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 8:01 am

711. Comment #188068 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:35 am

I have some trouble with the fundamental idea of "consent" being the basis for sexual relations. It is quite reasonable between humans (we cannot force people to have sex) but when applied to animals, it seems to have an automatic ruling. Yet, we do much worse to animals (hunt, slaughter etc.) without their consent and think little of it. This is why using "consent" as an argument not to condone bestiality is weak at best, in my view.

Hang on now. What you were asserting was the lack of a distinction between homosexuality and bestiality. What you are now doing is saying that bestiality is not worse than other things which are done to animals. At best, this will help you establish some basis for condoning bestiality, but to do that you will, inter alia, still have to show that "other things" such as hunting are OK.

What this line of argument will never do is to prove your original assertion: homosexuality equiv. bestiality.

Care to try again, or would you prefer to engage irate on the question of gazelles?

222. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188082 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 7:54 am

720. Comment #188080 by Appleby on June 3, 2008 at 7:50 am

I'm not here to discuss objective morality, I'm afraid.

Why raise it then?

223. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188060 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 7:27 am

al-rawandi - Regrettably, I missed that. I'm sure it would have been most edifying.

I don't get it, why is it when you talk homosexuality someone immediately brings up bestiality.

I suspect that for some people, they evoke the same sorts of feelings of disgust.

It will be particularly prevalent with a religious mindset, which regards women as something into which to stick your penis rather than as autonomous humans. The bible and the koran are not noted for their insistence on such trivialities as consent and capacity to consent. So why distinguish between "disgusting" acts between consenting men and "disgusting" acts between a man and a goat?

The principle of consent has been explained around seventy times to Appleby. He is either deliberately not getting it for the purposes of winding people up, or has the intelligence of a daffodil, which seems doubtful.

In entirely unrelated news, Max Mosely has won his vote. Much, I am sure, to the chagrin of certain religious types, who wish they could afford a similar orgy.

224. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #188036 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 7:07 am

686. Comment #188031 by epeeist on June 3, 2008 at 7:02 am

So what do with think of this little hottie?

That's the nicest pussy we've seen here for a while.

However, it's a tom. I'm sure Appleby isn't into gay cats.

Well, fairly sure.

225. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187997 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 6:13 am

(and I can't get 'Pictures of Matchstick Men' out of my head)

Peacebeuponme - That's easily cured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ9M7bsx10I

226. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187992 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 5:50 am

I'm definitely regretting my "somewhat rational" comment after his last few.

It's pretty hard to get anywhere with someone who thinks a good answer to the question "Why shouldn't we legalise X" is "because X is illegal".

227. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187934 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 4:18 am

Well I see I don't need to write "No he didn't" anyway.

Oh bollocks.

228. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187924 by hungarianelephant on June 3, 2008 at 4:03 am

I'm late into this debate. A couple of observations on the last batch of posts:

580. Comment #187864 by Cartomancer on June 2, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Why is the status quo so important? Why is what we have now to be valued over the improvements we may well be able to implement? When slavery was the status quo people used similar arguments. When the oppression of women was the status quo people used similar arguments.

First, I think Appleby is right to point out that this presumes that what is being proposed is an "improvement". We have had 10 years of this nonsense in the UK and ought to be able to spot the logical fallacy by now. Some things are old and out of date. Other things are old because they worked - naturally selected institutions, if you will.

Blind deference to the status quo is ... er ... blind. And daft. But the status quo gives you a position to start from, to make incremental changes which can be adopted, built upon, modified or rejected, according to whether or not they seem to work. "Progress" does not have to work in one direction, and tearing up the rulebook is rarely a terrific plan. The law of unintended consequences tends to bite you in the arse.

Slavery was not abolished in one go. First it was restricted, then it was abolished in England, then the abolition extended to British colonies, and eventually the Royal Navy was deployed to try to break it up worldwide. The American experience was much more painful, but for reasons which we could argue about endlessly. It's entirely possible that but for the absurd Dred Scott decision, slavery would have fallen apart by itself without the need for war.

The oppression of women was not abolished in one go either. It's even possible to argue that we still have some vestiges. Even here, some of the rapid changes, in the name of a new dogma, haven't gone all that well. Nearly all of us would support the right of women to work and be paid the same as a man for doing the same job. But this has had some unpleasant consequences as well. It has become practically impossible for most families to manage on a single income, because the rapid proliferation of double income families has pushed housing out of reach. What of the women (and men) who see it as a valuable contribution to stay at home and bring up the children? What use is a "right" to do it if it can't practically be done? (Lest I be jumped on for this, I am emphatically not arguing for the abolition of equal rights at work. The point is that the change was rapid and the consequences not worked through. It should be possible to repair the damage without reversing the gains, but that's another discussion.)

Here, however, we are not talking about a sudden and radical change. Since we gave up persecuting homosexuals quite some time ago, plenty have brought up children. There's plenty of evidence, cited by other posters, that children are not worse off when brought up by a homosexual couple, compared to a heterosexual couple.

This debate has been going on for a while in the letters section of newspapers. It's obvious that some people will never accept the actual evidence. There "must be" some damage, because it's not "normal". And that alleged damage outweighs all other considerations.

Second observation - one way of spotting nonsense is when someone repeatedly makes comparisons or analogies that don't hold water. On this thread, Appleby has repeatedly bracketed homosexuality with bestiality. In the twisted heads of fundie evangelists, this makes perfect sense. What I can't understand is why someone with the obvious intelligence and somewhat rational approach of Appleby persists with this.

229. Senate bill allows display of Lord's Prayer, 10 Commandments

Comment #186384 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 8:30 am

17. Comment #186381 by esuther on May 30, 2008 at 8:25 am

How about one or two of the treaties the US government made with native Americans and then broke

SSHHHH, for FSM's sake! You know that you're not allowed to talk about that. Or the one the British made, which guaranteed the land west of the 13 colonies to the native Americans in exchange for their help in beating the French during the Seven Years War. You know, the one they wanted to get out of in the early 1770s, but couldn't because the Brits were in charge ...

230. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186373 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 8:18 am

al-rawandi - I am not making this up. That is exactly what the Blair government did with the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General.

It was eventually published:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf?gusrc=ticker-103704

Buggered if I understand it.

Btw, I'm a strong believer in legal privilege. I don't see how else you can expect to guarantee honest and forthright advice. But a democratic government trying to hide behind it while simultaneously basing its whole defence on that advice ... well, that's just not cricket.

231. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186360 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 7:59 am

French court annuls marriage on the ground that woman is not a virgin.

Is it 1 April again?

232. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186358 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 7:58 am

142. Comment #186345 by kaiserkriss on May 30, 2008 at 7:41 am

Sorry to barge in on your conversation here, but what IS a legal war or invasion versus an ILLEGAL war or invasion?

Back in the "good old days" that distinction was never made. If we recognize the principal of sovereignty, then any invasion or war should be described as illegal.jcw

Excellent question. The answer is that if you don't like the war, you describe it as "illegal", even if you can't distinguish international law from a yellow rubber duck. Conversely, if you do like the war, your answer is that "our advice is that the war is legal". You then refuse to publish said advice on the ground of legal privilege.

And by the time we've figured out whether it is legal or not, everyone is dead, and the problem is moot.

This is not an entirely flippant answer. I've studied public international law, and I still don't have a clue how you answer questions like that. Fortunately, there are always some armchair pundits to help me out.

233. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186312 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 6:12 am

134. Comment #186305 by sjk on May 30, 2008 at 5:42 am

You clearly want to turn this into an argument about Iraq, which is the subject matter of exactly 100% of your previous posts.

Well, tough. This is about freedom of speech. Who has that right, and who champions it, has nothing whatever to do with the position they took on Iraq. Why is that so difficult to understand?

But let us not kid ourselves, while he champions *his* freedom of speech, in demanding war on the Arabs to destabilise their countries, he is clearly not a champion of freedom of speech.

Read that aloud and see if it still sounds like a convincing argument to you.

Oh, and

You wrote: "If you don't like what Steyn says, go and leave a comment on his blog: http://www.steynonline.com. I dare you". You dare me? What are you - 10 years old?

Yes. Does that make my argument more, or less valid? Presumably we should take your response as "no, I'd rather argue with a stranger on the internet with a silly moniker than actually address my arguments to the man I consider to be a nutter". Right?

234. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186293 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 4:42 am

131. Comment #186278 by sjk on May 30, 2008 at 3:48 am

Steyn didn't call for the death of arabs before sept 11?

Of course he did

Do you actually read the articles you cite before misrepresenting them? Steyn is certainly arguing for war. And why? Well how about this:

A War For Civilisation (title)

or this:

funnily enough UN sanctions don't seem to have so tightened Saddam's purse strings that he can't find 25,000 bucks to give to the family of each Palestinian suicide bomber. More than that, he's still here. And, simply by being still here, he's what passes for a success story in the Arab world

or this:

This is good news for any Palestinians interested in actual life.

Some people, apparently you included, are so blinkered by their opposition for the war that they cannot possibly conceive that one of its aims might perhaps have been to improve the lot of people in Iraq, and that some people supported it for that reason. You can call that misguided. You can call it naive. What you cannot do is to recharacterise it as an intention to "kill Arabs" (a phrase you still haven't backed up). That's downright dishonest.

hungarianelephant: juvenile taunts and strawmen - I think someone needs to get over himself.

A touch ironic, perhaps, given that the previous line of your post was

Of course, if you think Steyn was supporting a very special kind of war, you know, the kind where no one actually dies, then I grant you your point.

But that only makes Steyn an even bigger nutcase and even more undeserving of the support of any self-respecting rationalist.

Would you care to elaborate on what the juvenile taunts and strawmen were, or are you just trying to avoid discussion?

So Steyn's "Freedom of speech for me, but death for thee" is not a principle I recognise as part of our western culture.

Straw man.

I stand by my original claim that Steyn is a very poor choice indeed to be championing the sacred principle of freedom of speech.

Look, let me spell this out in short words. If you do believe in "freedom of speech", with or without meaningless loaded words like "sacred", then it has to apply to everyone, regardless of what they have to say. It wouldn't be needed if we all agreed on anything. You're on pretty safe ground with "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing", but a free society means that we have to be able to have an open discussion on any subject.

As you may have noticed, the Iraq war and the rise of Islam are quite controversial subjects. Someone, somewhere, is going to have unpopular views. And some of them will defend them robustly.

Whether or not you like what Mark Steyn has to say, he is unpopular, controversial and robust. That makes him perfectly placed to defend free speech. Same as Larry Flynt. Remember him?

Even if he wasn't, you don't get to choose. You either get behind him and argue with the content later, or stop pretending to support free speech.

What's it to be?

235. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #186283 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 4:07 am

174. Comment #186066 by qomak on May 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm

To expound on this, let us go bit back in history when anti-semitism and was common. While probably the best solution would be to educate everyone to not be racist, I don't think that could be practical. Imagine to counter that you establish anti-hatespeech laws. Now, since no case is black or white there would be instances where these anti-hatespeech laws would be misused.

BZZZZZZ. Sorry, that won't do.

Trying to regulate conduct in a vague and unspecified way is what tyrants do. That's precisely why the US Constitution has a Due Process clause in it. (Oh for the same in Britain.)

As soon as greyness is established, it has the effect of silencing those who worry that they might be in a grey area. On another thread we were discussing the Met's attempt to prosecute a 15 year old for calling scientology a "cult". For every one that refuses to take down the placard, there will be more who never put it up in the first place. And what effect do you think the BCHRC's actions have on people in Canada who want to criticise Islam?

236. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186276 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 3:44 am

63. Comment #186241 by mmurray on May 30, 2008 at 2:28 am

I don't see why this is a viable moral approach if what is being suggested is to not bother to find out what the problem is. What if it turns out we can modify the WiFi signal in some way that eliminates the problem without diminishing the usefulness of the technology? Shouldn't we do that ?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. The point is that the default response of deciding whether or not WiFi is ok based solely upon its organic effects is flawed. As pointed out above, even if it were shown that it does cause some organic problems in a tiny number of people, that may not be a good enough reason to ban it, though as you say it would certainly be a good reason to look for alternatives.

66. Comment #186250 by PJG on May 30, 2008 at 2:43 am

We all like to get our own way. It is the extent to which someone will go to get it that marks them as mentally ill!

Good post.

How would you go about measuring this and determining the appropriate threshold for mental illness?

237. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186229 by hungarianelephant on May 30, 2008 at 1:38 am

15. Comment #186130 by Bonzai on May 29, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Hypersensitivity to em radiation may be psychosomatic, but as long as these people are not lying willfully, it is still "real" to them in terms of health impacts.

Yes.

This reminds me of a case from my days as a personal injury lawyer. Let's call her Mary. Mary had been involved in a rear-end collision, and appeared to have sustained a whiplash injury. Four years on, she was not working and was being pushed around in a wheelchair. She had to be carried near stairs. She spoke quietly, because speaking at a normal volume made her feel sick. She could not write because the act of holding the pen gave her shoulder pains.

It looked like a big compensation case. Except that four expert neurosurgeons who examined Mary couldn't find anything remotely the matter with her.

The insurance company made a Get Stuffed Offer. But it was rejected. The point was that although her suffering was all in her head, Mary had sustained a real psychiatric injury, and it had taken over her life. Eventually they had to pay her a much larger amount.

The question that's never been answered is whether she should be allowed compensation. In legal circles, it's heresy to raise it. A psychiatric injury is regarded as the same as a physical one. But I still wonder whether that is the right response. The litigation had become the most important thing in Mary's life - and this is an extremely common phenomenon. The constant obsessing over her problems, and the legal case, was undoubtedly making her condition worse. It might have been better, in the long run, if the law told her, as a matter of policy, "You're crazy, the problems are all in your head, you can't have any compensation so just get over it".

Having had periods of serious depression myself, I don't say this lightly. The most useful thing anyone did was not to sell me Prozac, but to tell me to pull myself together. Would compensation have helped? I doubt it. Hindered? Probably.

If I understand Bonzai's broader point, it is that whether the injury is organic or psychiatric, the appropriate response might be to press on anyway. That is a potentially viable moral approach - sometimes the public good does demand that a few individuals take their own countermeasures. But it would be very difficult to sell, let alone get through the courts, in our current society. So I'd support the double blind test, regardless of the problems mentioned.

238. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #186005 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 10:46 am

Actually, she's dead. Oriana Fallaci, unless I'm much mistaken.

EDIT - I understand she died still in opposition to Islam.

EDIT2 - and, by a curious coincidence, she was a friend of Mark Steyn.

239. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185998 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 10:32 am

117. Comment #185990 by al-rawandi on May 29, 2008 at 10:13 am

Oh, I agree.

I just find it's not worth discussing Israel here or anywhere else. Before we can sensibly discuss what should happen in Gaza, Lebanon or the West Bank, we need general agreement on the question of whether Israel should exist at all. Otherwise it's like discussing what Yahweh likes for breakfast.

This is usually cue for a rant from someone about the injustices of 1948 blah blah blah. 1948 is in the past. There have been lots of illegitimate acquisitions of territory in the past, up to and including the annexation by the USSR of a large slab of Poland, and by Poland of a large slab of Germany, at around the same time. No one ever follows through the logic of booting the Israelis out because of an historic wrong.

The question is what we do now. If people want to say that Israel should be destroyed, I wish they would just fucking say so, and we can have a proper debate instead of sanctimonious moralising. Say what you like about Ahmadinnerjacket. At least he's clear.

240. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185993 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 10:23 am

114. Comment #185985 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 29, 2008 at 10:00 am

Wait...not, HAIRSPRAY, PINK FLAMINGOS John Waters? I saw the "wacky views" and thought so. Just curious. Otherwise, I hadn't heard of him.

Er ... no, I don't think so.

He did write the lyrics for Ireland's Eurovision entry last year. Shite, it was. In fairness, the lyrics were the least awful part.

241. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185984 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 9:56 am

al-rawandi - You might enjoy John Waters' The Politburo Has Decided That You Are Unwell. It's a collection of his columns from the Irish Times.

Waters is an ex-liberal who changed his mind, and found himself excommunicated and subjected to ad hom attacks by his former friends. The biggest change came when he fathered Sinead O'Connor's child, and suddenly found that he had basically no rights as an unmarried father. He thought that the feminists he used to hang out with would recognise a grave injustice perpetrated against one gender. They didn't.

He has a few wacky views - the whole Catholic thing is very hard to fathom, and his defence of that crook Haughey is laughable - but he always has something interesting and original to say.

242. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #185981 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 9:43 am

15. Comment #185961 by irate_atheist on May 29, 2008 at 8:41 am

There's a lot of BS on this thread about how bad universal healthcare is. Try being uninsurable - through any provider, and requiring a replacement aorta due to an untreatable genetic disorder, before you start bullshitting on this subject. My sister's quite happy for things to be just as they are, thank you very much. And funnily enough, so am I.

irate - That's a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to support socialised payment for all, or just for the uninsurable, without going along with the lumbering apparatus of the NHS. Most European countries use a much less centralised model, and frankly I'd rather be ill in France than in England. The Singapore model is quite interesting too, and apparently one of the most efficient in the world.

As I see it, the biggest problem with socialised payment (even independent of the delivery mechanism) is deciding who gets what. In practice, it's virtually impossible to discuss these issues without someone calling someone else a Nazi.

What is "need"? What is "desperate need"?

Should we favour the young over the old?

Should we refuse treatment to those whose injuries are self-inflicted?

How do you evaluate the cost/benefit of a treatment? Is this even a legitimate enquiry?

Is anyone really happy that the most frequent operation carried out by the NHS, at public expense, is abortion?

It's easy to answer these questions when the subject is you, or someone close to you, and the money is someone else's. Health services don't have that luxury. The UK creates NICE to try to determine who gets what. NICE are trying really hard to do a proper job, and getting in the neck from both sides. Yet no one really wants to debate the criteria they are using. It's all about the immediate. In fact, we now get arguments about resource allocation dressed up spuriously as questions of medical ethics. This can't be good for anyone.

243. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185949 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 7:52 am

92. Comment #185918 by Robert Maynard on May 29, 2008 at 4:52 am

Excellent post.

FWIW, Steyn has described himself as an old-fashioned, JS Mill liberal. The NY Times describes his last book as "A conservative commentator argues ...", which is code for "you don't need to bother with this".

94. Comment #185922 by sjk on May 29, 2008 at 5:19 am

There is a case for freedom of speech, but Mark Steyn is not the man to make it

Oh, get over yourself. The whole point of the right of free speech is that it is content-neutral. The people most likely to have to defend it are those with something unpopular to say. If you don't like what Steyn says, go and leave a comment on his blog: http://www.steynonline.com. I dare you.

EDIT - and show us where he supports killing Arabs, while you're about it.

244. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185899 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 2:47 am

80. Comment #185863 by SteveO on May 28, 2008 at 9:47 pm

What an offensive bit of pandering to PC over-sensitivity. Truly shameful for us to allow so much power for the thought police. (emphasis added)

Yes, quite.

The problem is not with the BCHRC. They are doing exactly what you would expect them to do. That is what they are for.

The problem is with the legislation that put them there in the first place.

It's difficult to oppose anything called a "Human Rights Act", or something similar. Well, obviously it means that you must be opposed to human rights. It's as unthinkable as opposing world peace or pink fluffy bunnies.

In fact, the whole human rights apparatus is a device to impose by edict a particular view of the world, dressed up in flowery language. Outcomes like this, or what has been going on at the UN, are the inevitable result.

Abraham Lincoln had it right: "We all declare for liberty, but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing."

245. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185886 by hungarianelephant on May 29, 2008 at 12:37 am

72. Comment #185813 by Naturalist1 on May 28, 2008 at 4:34 pm

He takes aim at the various Canadian Human Rights tribunals specifically pointing out that these actions are FREE of charge (taxpayer funded)to the plantiff and ruinously expensive for the defendant.

So, much like tax litigation, then.

246. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185673 by hungarianelephant on May 28, 2008 at 9:40 am

13. Comment #185666 by Stew282 on May 28, 2008 at 9:31 am

Is it just me, or do other atheists rarely seem to find themselves being offended? Is it a trait of religions to over stimulate the 'offence gland', this trait being particularly strong in islam?

So you reckon the offence is genuine, and not contrived for the purpose of shouting down someone they disagree with, then?

247. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #185656 by hungarianelephant on May 28, 2008 at 9:15 am

Sooner or later, people will figure out that "human rights" legislation is intended to be an instrument of oppression, not liberation. Talk about handing gifts to religion on a plate.

248. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185537 by hungarianelephant on May 28, 2008 at 3:28 am

227. Comment #185527 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 2:49 am

HunterZolomon the reason why there is so much outcry about 'racism' - that is, white supremacism - is because of this cult of moral narcissim. The criers have no concern about actual racism - when was the last time you heard them complaining about the Arab supremacism in Islam, or the murder of Zimbabwean and Nigerian immigrants to South Africa? No, they want to show off how 'courageous' and 'principled' they are. For this kind of mental masturbation, it's helpful to have position that not only involves no risk, but no controversy.

It's more than that.

Political correctness in all forms, and especially anti-racism, is quasi-religious in nature. Not only are you expected to believe in it, you are expected to proclaim your faith at every opportunity and shout loudly about the sinfulness of all heretics.

A denial of racism is conclusive proof of racism. An attempt to distinguish a racist sentiment from a distinction made on other grounds is conclusive proof of racism. Being a "hick" and having an opinion almost certainly makes you a racist.

I guarantee you that there are people reading this comment, thinking "hungarianelephant is a racist".

It's difficult to overstate the chilling effect that this has. Often, it hurts most the very people who are supposed to be the "oppressed". In London as in much of the US, a wildly disproportionate amount of the crime committed is nonwhite on nonwhite. We could discuss the broken, repressive "big man" culture which is endemic in areas of high crime. But instead, we have to send the Met on sensitivity awareness courses, and fret about whether too many black- or brown-skinned kids are being stopped and searched. And when 15 year old girls are packed off to Pakistan to be forced to marry their cousins, we don't charge their families with kidnap and accessory to rape and demand the extradition of the Islamabad end of the operation - no, we lecture the public on the equal value of all cultures.

249. What is science for?

Comment #185239 by hungarianelephant on May 27, 2008 at 8:43 am

wooter, stop changing threads. I've answered one of your questions, so now it's your turn to answer one in a similar vein.

If it takes a pirahna three days to walk to Bucharest, what colour is my granny's cat?

250. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #185238 by hungarianelephant on May 27, 2008 at 8:38 am

60. Comment #185229 by emmet on May 27, 2008 at 8:26 am

As a non-American, non-Welsh, non-English person, American, Welsh, and English media seem bizarrely jingoistic. As an Irish person, Irish media never seemed quite so bad, but I'm sure they are if you're American, Welsh, or English.

Yup, since you asked ;) (n=1, of course)

And don't get me started on Neil Back...