301. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183929 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 7:58 am

hungarianelephant-

like I said, I was being vague!

302. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183923 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 7:48 am

Bonzai-

I think a reverse question can be asked of you, do you think there is anything which should not become private property?

I'll be honest with you and say that I'm not sure of the answer to that. I'll have to think about it.

Being very vague, I suppose one example might be that I wouldn't like to see the healthcare system becoming fully privatised. Reason being, obviously, that provision of healthcare to those that need it but cannot afford to pay for it would be restricted.

I'll give it some thought.

303. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183905 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 6:38 am

Re the point about property, D'Arcy said:

As the means of living will be commonly owned by everyone to be used for the common good, much like the atmosphere today, there won't be any private property in the means of living

But what is "private property?" Do you have personal possessions? What is yours and what is state-owned?

304. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183857 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 3:35 am

Phil Rimmer-

good post. A socialist world would inevitably require a state or central authority to govern it, despite what D'Arcy might say. Nothing would get done otherwise.

305. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183835 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2008 at 1:44 am

D'Arcy-

I am not trying to dodge, I'm just glad that you're thinking about it. By "central authority" I take it you mean a state of some kind. The state is the representative of the ruling class, whether it be in chattel slavery, (ancient Greece and Rome), feudalism, ( Europe up till the beginnings of capitalism around 1700), or emergent capitalism proper from then till now. As Marx said in 1847, the state is the executive committee of the ruling class, and it's a view I agree with. The state as an institution is only required where private property interests are concerned. For further information you could read Lewis Henry Morgan's "Ancient Society", an American who lived among the Iroquois Indians and certainly not a socialist. Engels, certainly a socialist, also paid tribute to Morgan and expanded on his ideas in his "Origin of the State, Private Property and the Family".

This doesn't really answer my question at all. You assume that by "central authority" I mean "the state". But in the past you have talked about socialism only being truly attainable if it is implemented worldwide. It would be unreasonable to call the central authority for that transition "the state", since the inevitable question would be "which state"?

To be brief, once socialism has been decided as an objective and has been consciously brought into being by the majority of the world's population, workers, using the available political apparatus, then the need for the state as the agent for private property owners will disappear. If you think I'm talking nonsense, just think back to the last strike by workers which the government was in favour of.

Sigh. My point was that the only way socialism could be brought into being would be via a central authority or, as you word it, "the available politicial apparatus". Implementing it would, as I have said several times now, require massive bureaucracy and centralised control. Frankly, it's a little naive to think that a transition from a capitalistic to socialistic society could be achieved without it.

You seem to have ignored another of my points. Once again: implementation of socialist ideals would require the central authority to have a great deal of power and control. Human nature being what it is, why would they give that up? How would "the people" be able to make them, as the central authority would control the police and armed forces? Russia is a excellent example. What could the Russian people have done to remove Stalin from power? Sod all.

The state as an institution is only required where private property interests are concerned

I completely disagree with this. The state also has a hand in education, health care, social security, administration, utilities. With all private property interests gone, there would have to be some kind of authority that people could apply to for the roads to be repaired, or for support. Thus it's hard to see how the state/central authority would disappear.

And you haven't addressed the points in the rest of my comment: here they are again.

I will repeat it so that the straw man societies of North Korea, Cuba, Russia, China etc, which are all capitalist, are not used as arguments against the idea of socialism.

Socialism: a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living by, and in the interests of the whole community.

Another dodge. If all those countries say they're socialist or communist, why should we not agree with that?

IF socialism is ever established it will be brought into being by a willing population, not forced from above

How else would socialism be established in a capitalistic society without the regulation of a central authority? If you think there is a better way, by all means enlighten us.

1) How are resources allocated?

By democratic control to where they are needed

Flawed. How are people supposed to know where things are needed? How are the needy to inform a large group of their need without registering it to a central authority?

2) How are people prevented from starting private sytems of finance.

As the means of living will be commonly owned by everyone to be used for the common good, much like the atmosphere today, there won't be any private property in the means of living.

Extremely interesting. What about homes and personal possessions? Pictures of loved ones?

4) How do you prevent abuses of minority groups and parties?

As all individuals in a socialist society will have equal social standing and equal rights, all will have the same opportunity to express their point of view. The majority voice must always be the deciding one.

So in other words, minority groups would be stuffed. And if a majority of people voted that a minority group (for example "the gays" or "immigrants") were to be persecuted, who would protect them?

And finally, D'Arcy, Al's definition of socialism isn't particularly important. Nor is mine, Hungarian Elephant's, or anyone else on the thread. The reason for that is that you are the one making the assertions about socialism. We are merely pointing out the flaws. The question is, can you show where we are going wrong?

I'm waiting.

306. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183704 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm

D'Arcy-

First of all, IF socialism is ever established it will require the conscious and democratic majority to vote for it and sort out its particular organisation. It's not for me to give you a blue print

This is a dodge. You must have some idea about how it would be implemented. This relates to my point back in comment 511 that such implementation would inevitably require massive bureaucracy and centralised control, since there would have to be a central point that regulates the other points across the globe. As I have said before, and have as yet received no answer: with human nature being what it is, what makes you so convinced that such a central authority would relinquish its grip on power, or indeed that it could be removed by "the will of the people" given that it would control the police and armed forces.

I will repeat it so that the straw man societies of North Korea, Cuba, Russia, China etc, which are all capitalist, are not used as arguments against the idea of socialism.

Socialism: a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living by, and in the interests of the whole community.

Another dodge. If all those countries say they're socialist or communist, why should we not agree with that?

IF socialism is ever established it will be brought into being by a willing population, not forced from above

How else would socialism be established in a capitalistic society without the regulation of a central authority? If you think there is a better way, by all means enlighten us.

1) How are resources allocated?

By democratic control to where they are needed

Flawed. How are people supposed to know where things are needed? How are the needy to inform a large group of their need without registering it to a central authority?

2) How are people prevented from starting private sytems of finance.

As the means of living will be commonly owned by everyone to be used for the common good, much like the atmosphere today, there won't be any private property in the means of living.

Extremely interesting. What about homes and personal possessions? Pictures of loved ones?

4) How do you prevent abuses of minority groups and parties?

As all individuals in a socialist society will have equal social standing and equal rights, all will have the same opportunity to express their point of view. The majority voice must always be the deciding one.

So in other words, minority groups would be stuffed. And if a majority of people voted that a minority group (for example "the gays" or "immigrants") were to be persecuted, who would protect them?

And finally, D'Arcy, Al's definition of socialism isn't particularly important. Nor is mine, Hungarian Elephant's, or anyone else on the thread. The reason for that is that you are the one making the assertions about socialism. We are merely pointing out the flaws. The question is, can you show where we are going wrong?

I'm waiting.

307. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183558 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 9:09 am

mordacious1-

I tend to agree with you on this.

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

Comment #183537 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 8:31 am

My one quibble with this article is that it doesn't define how far out they went to get a sample of "nearby stars".

309. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183525 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 8:04 am

Tezcatlipoca-

I'm afraid that you are wrong, my mighty but nevertheless slightly inferior Central American fellow deity. The turtle is clearly one of the progeny of Great A'Tuin.

310. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183516 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 7:50 am

al-rawandi-

I don't know about that. Anna looks quite small compared to that turtle. It must be due to bad photography.

311. Kenya mob reportedly burns 11 'witches'

Comment #183476 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 7:01 am

Perhaps these are the same witches who were making the men's penises shrink that was reported before.

312. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183456 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 6:40 am

Anna-

that's a very strange picture! I didn't realise you were so short.

Al-Rawandi-

we shouldn't bomb Romania. It might make Dracula angry.

313. What is science for?

Comment #183407 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 4:15 am

To anyone who is still bothering to debate AS Marques, some of these links might be useful:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Use_of_gas_chambers

314. Missing matter found in deep space

Comment #183398 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 3:30 am

JeremyH-

Dark matter isn't the "god" of astrophysicists, not by a long shot.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13362-giant-ropes-of-dark-matter-found-in-new-sky-survey.html

315. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183375 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 2:19 am

Clearmind said:

Sorry Pal I watched beavers a lot with my students to show how God's creation is.

What kind of school is this? Classes at my school never did any beaver-watching. It was strictly an extra-curricular thing. :-)

316. What is science for?

Comment #183370 by Quetzalcoatl on May 22, 2008 at 2:12 am

Epeeist-

do you charge for introducing deluded people to each other, or is it a service that you perform for free?

317. In God's Name

Comment #183234 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Mark Smith-

Aisha being the girl Muhammad married at age six and had sex with at age nine.

Edited because I am apparently unable to spell the name Muhammad.

318. In God's Name

Comment #183228 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Mark Smith-

and don't even think about mentioning the whole Aisha issue.

319. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183210 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Peacebeuponme-

I've edited my earlier post with the info. But bear in mind that development of nervous system in no way equals consciousness.

320. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183203 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Peacebeuponme-

Al said well-spoken. You're getting confused.

321. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183197 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Peacebeuponme-

development of consciousness is late in the process. I don't think the nervous system develops until 26 to 28 weeks (I'll check that).

EDIT- 28 weeks is when the nervous system has developed sufficiently for it to control some of the foetal body functions.

322. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183182 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Fides-

We are digressing though. Late term abortion is wrong

That's a very definite statement. Define "late term". What about in the case of rape? Domestic violence? The discovery that the foetus is developing abnormally, ie with half its brain missing?

323. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183038 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 9:06 am

Clearmind-

I'm going to try reasoning with you, for all the good it will do.

Your Prophet's life has been written about in holy books, and has been historically documented. His actions are held up as an example to Muslims everywhere.

Anna, to my knowledge, has not been written about in any holy book (although if I ever get around to writing my own sacred text, she and many other RD.netters may get a mention). There is no parallel between your prophet and Anna.

Notice that Al-Rawandi has not insulted your wife. Don't insult Anna.

324. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182965 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 6:55 am

all-windi-

where's your logics? You can't pee in Quetz's ear when bananas has your nose. evolins not see what eagle sees. He sees from high up on his cloud. he sees you crazy, not listen to prophets, think he talks about meatballs. BUT MEATBALLS ARE NOT PURPLE. Haha, wibble.

blackwolf-

where antworld come from, not from evolins, nor, russell not know. come from snake, worship snake.

325. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182955 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 6:42 am

all-windi-

why you not listen to story of Bertrand Russell and Mona Lisa. She say to him, listen with nose, not with eyes. Russelssay you crazy, I wait for this orange to change into nose, then I use it to listen with. But orange have meatball inside? Mean what? Evolins not know. Evolins think human come from water worm, ha, but where water worm come from. Not from Mona lisa, she think you all crazy. Where your nose, all-windi, maybe bananas have your nose in hole in ground.

326. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182941 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 6:27 am

Clearminds say evolins smear, but not know prophets wrong about blindwatchmaker, haha where is Mona Lisa's meatballs? Not come from water-worm, children in my class think evolins crazy. A mouth belongs to its owner, but not his nose. How old is oranges?

327. Missing matter found in deep space

Comment #182912 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 5:47 am

Everyone-

this article has a lot more detail:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080520152013.htm

328. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #182869 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 4:27 am

CraigB-

relax. Nobody said that you can't be an atheist and disagree with aspects of abortion.

329. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #182845 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 3:21 am

Seriously? How has Clearmind not been banned by now? Now he's suggesting Al-Rawandi is a paedophile/involved with Fanusi, and has mentioned Anna again. What the hell?

Al-Rawandi- I think you struck a nerve.

Clearmind- what religion do you believe in? What nationality are you?

330. What is science for?

Comment #182822 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 2:42 am

Peacebeuponme-

AS Marques' claims have been tackled on the original thread (Richard Dawkins On The Big Questions). Offhand, Cartomancer had some things to say, so did others.

331. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #182784 by Quetzalcoatl on May 21, 2008 at 1:11 am

I've said it on my own blog and others, and I'll say it again: this is excellent news, and a victory for science, rationality and women's rights. The reduction campaign, most prominently the 20 week campaign, was funded by a raft of fundamentalist Christian groups, who obviously didn't pray hard enough.

332. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182565 by Quetzalcoatl on May 20, 2008 at 1:55 pm

Freethinker79-

have you gone through the entire thread? There were numerous posts dealing with the movie's claims. I see that you are a new poster. Will you be sticking around?

333. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182479 by Quetzalcoatl on May 20, 2008 at 8:12 am

Bert the magic penguin's next opponent is the serpent of Midgard. Bert readies himself.....in an ironic twist, the penguin slips on a patch of ice and falls down! The serpent seizes its opportunity and devours the penguin. A sad end for the magical bird.

334. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #182407 by Quetzalcoatl on May 20, 2008 at 1:43 am

D'Arcy-

Quetz, my view is that there have been no communist / socialist countries. The idea is an absurdity. Countries don't exist in isolation, and countries are political constructions, e.g. India, Pakistan, Israel, Serbia, Russia, England, Scotland, USA to name a few.

You seem to be using the "No true Socialist" argument here. Thanks for listing the countries, by the way.

While it's true that countries don't exist in isolation, I fail to see why that should be a barrier. This is especially true when you consider Russia and China, very large countries with large populations and significant natural resources. If they can't implement it successfully, who can? Russia had over 70 years to do it, and failed miserably. To me that says something about the viability of the system as a whole. Saying that socialism will only succeed if implemented worldwide is a way of attempting to gloss over its abject failure in every country that it has been implemented in.

The idea of socialism is that the resources of the world should be used for the benefit of the whole population and not to support a privileged elite and an under privileged majority. It's an idea I agree with.

You seem to have ignored the point, made by both Al-Rawandi and myself, that the implementation of this ideal would require massive bureaucracy and centralised control. Once again, how likely is it that the central authority will be willing to let go of the power that they hold, the power to literally control people's lives? Human nature again.

Also, as I said before, what is to stop the central committee investing in projects to the detriment of the people- NK's nuclear program being a prime example. The committee would have control of the army and the police, so precisely what would the people be able to do about it?

Another point you've omitted: central control will never be dissolved, since there would be no mechanism for stopping individuals from using alternative capitalistic finance systems, which people would flock to.

335. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182269 by Quetzalcoatl on May 19, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Goldy-

yes, but I drive a car every day. So I'm not going there.

336. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #182263 by Quetzalcoatl on May 19, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I'll jump in on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxyLdsgnL8c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_YvqhJ22Ow

337. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #182257 by Quetzalcoatl on May 19, 2008 at 2:23 pm

D'Arcy-

I'm aware that it probably repeated what has already been said, but any response to my comment 499? If you've addressed those points before, can you point me to the comment in question?

338. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #182254 by Quetzalcoatl on May 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm

D'Arcy-

I would say that China is becoming increasingly capitalistic precisely because it realises that Communism doesn't work.

339. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #182095 by Quetzalcoatl on May 19, 2008 at 8:09 am

Clearmind-

the only thing "self-evident" is that you have nothing to contribute. People have made efforts to engage in dialogue with you only to be met by ridiculous assertions, wholesale cut-and-pasting, and grammar and spelling of a standard that would shame a blind one-armed chimpanzee.

If you think this site is so closed to your special brand of logic then take your babbling about Mona Lisa, Bertrand Russell and the blind watchmaker elsewhere. I'm tired of having to scroll past your drivel to get to the decent posts of others.

PS- I did have a comment up earlier which I deleted. I decided a little more detail than "Sod off" was needed.

340. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #182064 by Quetzalcoatl on May 19, 2008 at 7:15 am

MaxD-

whoever Clearmind is, it's getting bloody irritating.

341. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #182044 by Quetzalcoatl on May 19, 2008 at 6:43 am

Al-rawandi-

I read a Newsweek article where they spoke to an evangelical guy who provided aid to people who escaped from North Korea. When he started telling them about Jesus, they said that this Jesus sounded a lot like what they were told about Kim Jong-Il, and they'd prefer just to have the food. Telling, don't you think?

It also seems to me that central committees tend to throw money at things that in no way benefit the people of their country, and sometimes act to their detriment ie NK's nuclear program. Money that could have gone into providing food for the people went into a program that was shit anyway compared to any other country's. In a socialist system, what exactly would the people be able to do about such abuse. Not a lot as far as I can see.

342. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #182022 by Quetzalcoatl on May 19, 2008 at 6:02 am

D'Arcy-

apologies if this has already been pointed out, but the idea that once socialism is established the state will "wither away" is incredibly unrealistic.

To switch a country over from capitalism to socialism would require a massive state effort, and a great deal of control and regulation. It would take years and years. How likely do you think it is that, after so long with so much power, the "committee" would simply give it all up? Not very likely at all. We have seen that in EVERY country where socialism/communism has taken over. In addition, socialism could only be maintained if everyone participated in it. But there will always be those who could take advantage in a socialist country by using different systems of finance. Without a central committee, there would be no mechanism to stop them. Another reason why the central control would never be dissolved.

343. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181990 by Quetzalcoatl on May 19, 2008 at 4:07 am

Txpiper-

I would enthusiastically agree with both of these points. That does not make me shy away from asking questions. It should not inhibit anyone from doing so

Perhaps, but your questions hold less weight if you refuse to acknowledge the answers that posters go to the trouble of providing for you, instead opting to ignore most of them and cherry-pick the points that you think support your case.

344. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181729 by Quetzalcoatl on May 18, 2008 at 4:53 am

What makes everyone so sure that it's the same David Robertson as he who frequents this site?

345. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181170 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Oh but Diacanu, he didn't mean it that way, we just took it out of context. Or so we were told.

346. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181167 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 1:59 pm

David Robertson once made a crack about having to leave a thread to go visit the parents of a baby who had just died. A terrible time, he said, "for those of us who believe that we are more than throwaway survival machines". More polite? Hardly.

347. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181163 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Sauveterre-

Amen. I suspect, though, it's less to do with atheist bad morality and more him not finding what he was looking for here and jumping to the next potential source.

348. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181154 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Black Wolf-

I think it was a woman, but I can't find the damn report now!

349. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181147 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Sauveterre-

PM en route.

350. Indian village proud after double 'honor killing'

Comment #181138 by Quetzalcoatl on May 16, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Ah, the caste system. One of the wonderful things about Indian culture. Self-righteous fucktards.