351. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #233219 by Sargeist on August 19, 2008 at 11:41 am

Thanks, Rigo. Not the one I remember, but a good one nonetheless. :)

I especially like: "...take refuge in the will of God - in other words, the sanctuary of ignorance."

I have been browsing around a little, and have found a reference to one of Spinoza's letters (to whom, I do not know), in which he says (and I am just quoting from the source which is quoting from him):

Conceive, if you please, that while continuing in motion this stone
thinks, and knows that it is endeavouring, as far as in it lies, to continue
in motion. Now this stone, since it is conscious only of its endeavour and
is not at all indifferent, will think it is completely free, and that it
continues in motion for no other reason than that it so wishes. This, then,
is that human freedom which all men boast of possessing.

352. Catholic leaders block contraceptive advice for 30,000 Scots girls

Comment #232997 by Sargeist on August 19, 2008 at 2:20 am

It is indeed very odd how the Catholic Church behaves.

Could someone clarify something for me, though? In this story are they saying only that the contraception advice will not be given in Catholic schools that are giving the vaccination (with all other schools doing the sensible thing), or is it the case that, as I fear, the Catholics have somehow managed to arrange it so that all schools will have to refrain from giving the advice along with the vaccine?

353. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #232623 by Sargeist on August 18, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Steve,

Thanks heavens you said that. I thought I was starting to go mad, having wandered into some barmy world where none of the comments were making sense.

354. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #232009 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Diacanu,

test

355. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232006 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Oystein:

I stand corrected

356. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #232004 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 12:08 pm

I have some lovely Q10 cream here. The "Q" refers to Quantum, because, as everyone knows, human skin at the subatomic, or "Schrodinger", level exists in an intertwined energetic reality, thereby visibly reducing the possible appearance of fine lines<sup>*


*</sup> Note: Results not guaranteed in all parts of the multiverse.

357. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231996 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Ok, for anyone who still cares, it has now come to mind what it was that Stephen Baxter used in one of his novels: the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, by John Cramer.

The Rev Mod Phys original is not online for free, but there is an html version on Cramer's website:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti/TI_toc.html

and the Wikipedia article is ok, too:

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

Basically, my wave that I send out "now" goes forward in time, and the detector sends out a wave backwards in time when the wave reaches it. This backwardly time-propagating wave interacts with the source wave in such a way as to ensure that the results come out how standard QM predicts. He says that these waves are real waves, moving in two time directions, and not merely "probability waves".

He also claims, although I don't know what it means, that his interpretation can be verified in some experiments that show different results to the standard Copenhagen interpretation.

358. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231989 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 11:50 am

Oystein,

Hmm, I could've sworn that QM was non-local, because of entanglement.

I should probably go and get a copy of Bell's book!

359. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231988 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 11:48 am

Hi J Mac,

Er.... well... I am now going to have to probably sidle off and do some reading, or re-reading because I am not comfortable to say things that I am not really sure about.

My *recollection* is that, basically, quantum mechanics is weird and odd and ooh, spoooooky, but it essentially WORKS and most people don't worry about it too much. The equations work, the maths works, and we can make predictions which are generally borne out. I have a lot of sympathy with that view, because it helps to stop one going mad.

Now, I also find all the thoughts about "what it all means" to be really interesting, too, but I am not really qualified to know how one might test Bohmian mechanics (although the arxiv site does have some papers about its consistency with the "accepted" views of QM - do a quick search for Bohmian) or how one could tell if Everett's many worlds interpretation was right or not.

One of the models of QM that I quite liked was one that Stephen Baxter (fabulous SF author) used in one of his novels; but sadly I cannot find the reference at the moment! (bugger!)

360. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231974 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 11:33 am

I confess that I do not know much about hidden variables, other than that Bells' inequality has been experimentally verified by Alain Aspect et al some time ago, and apparently put the nail in the coffin of locality. But I am out of practice, as I often repeat!

J Mac, I empathise much with your reading predicaments. While watching the Mummy 3 today I was wondering if the pool of immortality might be quite useful in helping me to get through some books. Although I would have to be prevented from buying more, which would be the real problem.

361. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231971 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 11:30 am

I am pretty sure that Darwin has a quote somewhere about a stone rolling down a hill, on the topic of free will. The trouble is, I also think that Spinoza made a similar comment. I am hoping that there are two quotes saying similar but different things.

Something like: "The only difference between a man rolling down a hill and a stone rolling down a hill is that the man thinks he has some say in the matter."

Can anyone here help?

362. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231964 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 11:23 am

I am having to do this in two pieces because the site rejected my previous long comment. Maybe there is a new spam fritter, I mean, filter in place?

The rest of what I wanted to post:

There have been a number of objections to the papers, some of which can be found by searching for Kochen's name at the arxiv; e.g.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611283v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604122v2

(The second one is amusing to me because it is written by Stephen Adler. And here was me wondering what he did after being kicked out of Guns'n'Roses!)

And there are the responses by Kochen and Conway to those responses. Which you can do a search for, if you want them.

This is an article about the Free Will Theorem:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jas/one/freewill-theorem.html

The Wikipedia page about the Kochen-Specker theorem is interesting, and it has one about the Free Will theorem, too.

Finally, the issues of non-locality and hidden variables come up with this free will thing, so it might be nice for me to mention again that one can get some nice papers from Rev. Mod. Phys. free online. And one of these is the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper, and Bohr's response! Yes, it does deserve that exclamation mark!

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v47/i10/p777_1
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v48/i8/p696_1

363. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231963 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 11:22 am

Ah yes, Freedom Evolves... Another one of those 300 or so books on my bookshelf (it's a big shelf, ok?)

Damn, I'll not be alive enough to read all the books I have, let alone the ones I have not yet bought, but shall inevitably buy. Damn damn damn.

Anyway, once again we have here an article about physics that does not provide a link to the research about which it is talking! Come on, people, this is the bloody internet!

The original Kochen and Specker is available on the web, seemingly legally (well, from an edu domain, so that is legal I assume):

http://www.iumj.indiana.edu/IUMJ/dfulltext.php?year=1968&volume=17&artid=17004

(ignore the SQL errors (i had some) and download from the pdf link)

The previous Kochen and Conway paper is at:

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079

The new paper is at:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3286

364. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231942 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 10:49 am

J Mac, sorry I didn't respond to your request for book info etc earlier. I have not really kept up with physics much in the years since my PhD (which was in condensed matter rather than cosmology, gravity or string theory), but I am always willing to waffle on in a semi-helpful way!

365. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231939 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 10:47 am

The trouble I tend to have with popular books about physics - perhaps why I much prefer to read popular books about biology - is that anything I can understand in them is something I already knew, and anything new in them is something I don't understand.

My archetype here is A Brief History of Time. I read this while at college and my feeling about it is exactly that anyone who knows anything about the topic won't learn anything from it because it is all presented in a simplistic way; but anyone who knows nothing about any of it won't learn anything because the simplistic descriptions are not detailed enough to provide understanding.

"oh, look, if you do it in imaginary time then the singularity vanishes" - eh? What? What do you actually mean by imaginary time? Show me some equations, goddamit!

366. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231935 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 10:33 am

Hi Steve,

Your posts on here about physics often make me feel slightly down because I did 10 years of physics from A-level to PhD, and yet I have not kept up with things in the several years since I got my doctorate. Sadly, given my background, I have to say that I tend to find reading Suetonius, Cicero or Plato (and other ancient writers) more interesting to me now than popular science about physics. A shame really, cos I do have those Brian Greene books, and the Routledge edition of Einstein's Relativity, and even Penrose's popular books and his huge, fat, not-so-popular book. Ah, such is life.

I especially enjoyed your posts not to long ago about time travel, when you were discussing the idea of a "god" having been some"thing" from the future who travelled back to the start of our universe. Very interesting. Not sure I followed it all... my PhD did not touch on cosmology at all!

Anyway, you might be interested to know that the edition of Rev. Mod. Phys. from 1949 for Einstein's 70th birthday is freely available online from the American Physical Society:

http://prola.aps.org/toc/RMP/v21/i3

Yes, this is the issue in which Godel gives his paper on the rotating universe!

367. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #231925 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 10:21 am

My feeling is (and that is all it is) that when, for example, the abortion act was passed in the UK back in the '60s, the allowance for doctors to conscientiously object to authorising the procedure for a woman (and to not to have to give reasons why they object, or to have to refer the patient to a named doctor who would not object) was a pragmatic one: viz. if we demand that all doctors do as the law permits, and require that they go against individual conscience, then we will find that large numbers of doctors leave the profession.

I don't have any evidence for this thought of mine - as I said, it is just my feeling - but if it were the case that many doctors would simply resign if required to carry out certain procedures, then it might be best to let them object, simply because we get them doing other medical work, and there may simply not be enough trained non-objecting doctors around to fill the gaps.

However, my girlfriend is a junior doctor in the UK and, given the dreadful way they seem to be fucked about by the government's endless and pointless reforms, I sometimes think it would be "fun" (in a nasty, "now what are you going to do, you arseholes?" kind of way) if a large number of doctors did turn around one day and say, ok, so we can't go on strike, but we can quit and become plumbers.

368. Do subatomic particles have free will?

Comment #231921 by Sargeist on August 17, 2008 at 10:15 am

I agree. Ever since I started to think about free will in any concerted way, I have come to the conclusion that our behaviour is either random or entirely determined. And the existence of personality means, I think, that the behaviour is not random. In fact, we all know anyway that we can often predict other people's behaviour with a high degree of accuracy, thereby showing that personality goes a long way.

It is often said that the unpredictability of quantum mechanics allows for free will. But I am not convinced by this, really. For example, we know that even though the aforementioned particle's spin must conform to certain rules (1-0-1) it nonetheless cannot be stated beforehand what the value would be. Its value when measured for the first time (because that collapses the wavefunction) is random, but random with some kind of constraint. However, we know that this randomness in quantum mechanics also leads, at the macroscopic level, to the observable "mechanical" laws that Newton propounded.

All very confusing and weird, of course. But that's why I got into physics in the first place.

Now, usually when people talk about determinism someone will pop up asking about where personal responsibility comes in. If people cannot control their actions, then why is it fair to punish them for it? Well, I have no real idea of "fair" in this context, but I do like the fact that determinism allows me (a hang-'em-and-flog-'em kind of guy) to equally say that I am unable to choose not to want to execute certain people, for I am similarly constrained by what is inevitable.

369. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229698 by Sargeist on August 14, 2008 at 12:28 am

Absolutely and totally superb.

Thank you, Independent, perhaps you have just about stolen my allegiance from the Guardian.

EDIT:

It is condescending to treat Muslims like excitable children who cannot cope with the probing, mocking treatment we hand out to Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism.

370. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #228652 by Sargeist on August 12, 2008 at 10:42 am

A friend of mine knew Rowan Williams when he was merely the Archbishop of Wales (or, maybe, just when he was Bishop of Monmouth) and he is, by my friend's account, a nice chappie.

However, I have always had this feeling that he is actually a character from the well known computer game Jet Set Willy, from the days of 8-bit home computers.

To whit:

371. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #228646 by Sargeist on August 12, 2008 at 10:34 am

Shuggy,

Yes, that's the one. It's funny; I only knew him as the Voice of Death from Discworld, but now it seems he has this whole previous career!

I am not familiar with the Ellen Burstyn documentary. Can I gather it was not as authoritative as the Lee version?

372. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228157 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm

I often hear the argument "hey, loads of people you know are probably doing those things you don't like, hey? and you don't even know!"

Well, you're right Because if I did know, then I would think they were a twat.

373. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228153 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I may be being old before my time, but in the same way that I think theists are idiots for believing in palpable nonsense, I think that people who use, say, cocaine and heroin and even cannabis are idiots, too. But then I think that of teenagers who sit around drinking Special Brew and White Lightning, and anyone who smokes tobacco is clearly a fool who doesn't want to have as much life as they can get their hands on.

If they're not using theirs I will take the years they don't want, because I have plenty that I want to do.

374. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228143 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 2:26 pm

phatbat: There's no evidence for it, but it's a scientific fact.

decius: Perhaps a bore, perhaps just the fact that even black metal is more enjoyable to me in a darkened room on my own.

EDIT: phatbat:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo960723/text/60723w10.htm

column 169, Mr Amess, asking about drugs.

375. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228138 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 2:22 pm

TWP:

You have made me very very pleased that I have not been to a nightclub since I was about 22. And it was shite back then, too.

376. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228136 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Quetz,

I have just gone back to read what I wrote, and I see now that I wasn't at all clear!

The trouble, as I see it, with these named "disorders" and "syndromes" is that people like me who are just a bit gitty from time to time don't have any nice excuses to fall back on. I simply am a sod.

377. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228132 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 2:14 pm

It wasn't clear in my right-wing-like ranting but, on balance, I do think we would be better off legalising the various "drugs", which I only put in inverted commas so that someone doesn't say "but drugs are already legal, what do you think tobacco and alcohol are?"

But, if it were possible, I'd like to have some arrangement by which it could cost enough so that any treatment programmes (which I assume would be required for those who go off the deep end) would not need to come out of general taxation.

I realise that hypothecation (if that is the correct term) is going to be a bit problematic, and I am possibly not entirely consistent in my thoughts, but I am worried that there will be more low-level addiction and social trouble if they *are* legalised. Even though I cannot be sure that is not just a kneejerk reaction to people who like to break the law.

I suppose I have assumed that certain substances are illegal because of the harm they do. You don't find people wanting to have the right to drive without wearing a seatbelt, even though the nasty old State is telling them what to do for their own good.

378. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228128 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Quetz,

I was meaning that perhaps a named personality disorder might help me to *avoid* those emotions.

379. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228114 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm

About Asperger's, I often think it might be "nice" (convenient, or some other such adjective) not to have some of the emotional responses that I get. They do rather get in the way of trying to make a point. "Oh dear, will people have a go at me for my opinions? Maybe I should reword that in case people don't like me? How can I make sure people like me as much as everyone else?"

380. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228110 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I knew I shouldn't have opened my mouth/fingers. The trouble with these sorts of things is that now I feel compelled to come up with iron-clad statistics (not a bad compulsion, of course) whereas the "other side" just has to say "well, you don't want to ban alcohol do you?" and leave it at that.

So, no I don't have a degree in pharmacology. I don't work for a rehabilitation unit. I don't have stats at my fingertips to refute any arguments. So, maybe I am just entirely wrong, and there is no difference between drinking alcohol socially and taking heroin socially.

381. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228081 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 12:59 pm

If it could be worked out so that the idiot masses who got hooked on coke, heroin, etc etc (and thereby became utterly useless to the rest of society) could indulge themselves without incurring social unrest, crime and, you know, didn't sponge loads of taxpayers' money to get themselves unhooked again when they realised it was all a big mistake, then I most likely have no problem at all with the legalisation of "drugs".

But I mostly think that in a society such as the democracies of the West, where we seem to like being nice to people all the bloody time, anything that a person does, even privately, might well have an impact on someone else.

And I just know I'll get cricket batted for this, but I simply think that if less money were to be available for the treatment of, say, leukaemia because of some twatfaced knobcunt who had to be treated because they just can't get it into their head that speedballing is a fuckwit's pastime, and the state has to pick up the bill... well, I'd just be petitioning to have my mobile deathsquads brought in pretty sharpish.

382. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228075 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Just because I've finally found something I can talk about:

According to the book "Human Biology and Health Studies" by Givens and Reiss, 40,000 deaths a year in the UK are attributed to alcohol consumption, and 100,000 a year to smoking. That is in the UK, with a population of one fifth that of the USA.

And I seem to be able to get to work without tripping over the fly-ridden corpses of the recently deceased.

Well, until I get to the chav-ridden bus station, then all hell breaks loose and I just go fucking crazy.

383. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228063 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Well, I did find this:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_alcohol_related_deaths_occur_each_year

384. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #228059 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Raiko,

maybe he should have looked for a place where atheists are not primarily discussing religious bigotry and pseudoscience.

385. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #228043 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 11:20 am

Terat,

Not to mention the bits of gristle spelling out "Allah" in Arabic.

That clinches it for me.

Now, where are my virgins?

386. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #228033 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 10:20 am

43. Comment #228005 by chewedbarber on August 11, 2008 at 8:56 am, quoth:

don't know Islam enough to ask hard questions

387. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #228030 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 10:15 am

42. Comment #227999 by Hellene on August 11, 2008 at 8:31 am
44. Comment #228018 by Richard Feldmann on August 11, 2008 at 9:29 am

This is very disappointing. The documentary I saw recently was pretty forthright in its depiction of pagans jumping around naked, in fields, in hotel rooms, harassing young impressionable police officers from the mainland. I didn't like the bit with the big man made of twigs or whatnot, but the rest of it seemed pretty good.

388. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227918 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 3:50 am

Quetz,

I generally have a pretty low opinion of much of humanity, but I use this as a reason for feeling superior. Which I find to be very cheering :)

389. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #227916 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 3:43 am

I've never met a witch/wiccan/pagan (not knowingly) but I imagine they are probably quite interesting people. A bit like goths - not violent, not abusive, just vaguely "different" (and often quite hot).

390. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #227910 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 3:39 am

rod:

"Make Me Parasitically Infested"?

Indistinguishable from Big Brother, with appropriate changes of scale.

391. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #227893 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 2:41 am

Bonzai,

Well, the good thing there is that those people can say: "Well, childbirth is natural", and get out of having to think about it.

Now, I am assuming there that those same people would think that abortion is not "natural", and given the abortifacients that are used these days, and little mini-vacuum cleaners etc, I suppose I can see their point. But the alternative would be to point out that there are perfectly "natural" ways of aborting a foetus, no doubt involving perfectly natural plant-derived preparations.

I was only saying before that I don't think that showing people what actually goes on in any procedure is necessarily a bad thing. Whether one can believe everything one is being shown, however, is another question.

Anyway, I am in two minds (again) about abortion. It isn't likely to affect me, so I don't really care. But the idea that some people might want to abort a, say, 4 month "old" foetus just because they've changed their mind about it really does bother me.

392. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #227880 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 2:06 am

I am in two minds about showing people footage of abortions. Just because something is icky, does not mean it is morally wrong. But, on the other hand, some people *do* think that something which elicits a strong "ick" response from them must, in some fashion, be really wrong or it would not have affected them.

One could also say that showing people what goes on in abattoirs is unfair, and that it implies that eating animals is morally wrong. But, again, this does not really follow.

393. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #227871 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 1:22 am

And I wish NBC would stop testing my gag-reflex by showing bush at the Olympics.

394. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #227633 by Sargeist on August 10, 2008 at 11:51 am

8. Comment #227626 by Border Collie on August 10, 2008 at 11:46 am
.commentText -->

395. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227620 by Sargeist on August 10, 2008 at 11:42 am

I can only speak hypothetically about whether I would speak out about Islam in front of Muslims, because I know only one Muslim to speak to, and she is my beloved. And she is Muslim only in the familial sense, not in the belief sense. All other Asians I know (who would be most likely to be Muslim out of anyone I know) are Sikh or Hindu. And they are not *particularly* nutty.

396. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227617 by Sargeist on August 10, 2008 at 11:38 am

To be honest, I don't know why I am reading books out of the library when I have hundreds on my bookshelves that I have not yet read. Such as those by Stenger, Dennett, Onfray and others. There's the Portable Atheist, the Book of Modern Science Writing, and innumerable(ish) others. If god did exist, I would only be lambasting him for making too many people write too many interesting books when I have so little life.

397. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #227614 by Sargeist on August 10, 2008 at 11:34 am

There is definitely something very odd about the missing comments' plague.

398. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #227598 by Sargeist on August 10, 2008 at 11:13 am

phil,

I recently read The Twilight of Atheism; some time before that I read Dawkins' God; and most recently I read The Dawkins Delusion?

(I borrowed them all from the library, in case you were wondering)

The Dawkins Delusion made me so annoyed that I kept having to make notes about its irritation. From what I recall, everything McGrath said in that book was, essentially, "I know you are but what am I?"

By contrast, The Twilight of Atheism was quite interesting, though not very convincing.

The Dawkins Delusion?, though, really was a waste of time. A lot of silly nitpicking about whether Paul really wrote some of the letters originally attributed to him, and about whether original sin is a central tenet of Christianity (we see where 27b-6 must have got his ideas from); McGrath should instead have dealt with the main thrust of the arguments, instead of just picking holes.

Anyway, I mention all this because I have recently borrowed The Language of God from the library, too. Is it likely to cause me to go into neural shutdown? I would not throw it around, as it is not my book, but I hope that I can get through the whole thing.

399. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227531 by Sargeist on August 10, 2008 at 6:54 am

Fanusi,

That's all very nice, and it is a lovely, oft-quoted passage. But being a popular and nice sounding piece of text doesn't mean much. For example, I am all in favour of shooting drug dealers, violent yobbos and knife-carrying thugs. Why? Because I think the world will be a better place without them. But I am not concerned that killing those people to get a better world is a small step towards rounding everyone up and having them shot.

400. Novel on prophet's wife pulled for fear of backlash

Comment #227248 by Sargeist on August 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

"Excuse me, are you the Prophet Muhammad?"
"Fuck off! I'm Muhammad the Prophet!"