France bans Muslim public prayers
Offline http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/france-bans-public-muslim-prayers/story-e6frg6so-1226138737349
MUSLIMS will be banned from praying outdoors in France from today in the latest move by officials to remove Islam from the public sphere.
The ban, announced by the government yesterday, infuriated French Muslim leaders, one of whom accused President Sarkozy's government of treating them like cattle.
They say that Muslims, who pray outdoors only because of a lack of space in mosques in France, feel stigmatised.
But Claude Gueant, the Interior Minister, said that the sight of hundreds of people gathering in the streets of Paris and other cities for Friday prayers was "shocking".
It comes after laws to prohibit pupils from wearing headscarves in schools and women from wearing the niqab, the full Muslim veil, in public.
Mr Gueant described outlawing street prayers as the latest brick in the wall that is shoring up the secular nature of the French state. He said that he had nothing against Islam, but wanted it out of the public eye.
"Street prayers must stop because they hurt the feelings of many of our compatriots who are shocked by the occupation of the public space for a religious practice," he said.
Police could be asked to arrest Muslims who continue to pray in the street, Mr Gueant warned, but officials will initially try to persuade them to move into a mosque.
Debate has focused on the Goutte d'Or district in northern Paris. Dozens and sometimes hundreds of Muslims pray in the surrounding streets.
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, was accused of racism when she said that the worship amounted to an "occupation" - a word that for many French is associated with the Nazi invasion during the Second World War.
But the government now appears to be on the same wavelength, with Mr Gueant agreeing that street prayers would "upset" his fellow countrymen.
He said that officials had made available a disused fire station in the Goutte d'Or with room for 2700 people for a rent of €30,000 ($A40,330) a year.
But Muslim leaders said that the site would be open to worshippers only on Fridays.
Mohamed Salah Hamza, imam at a mosque in the Goutte d'Or district, said: "We are not cattle. Our demands have not entirely been satisfied."
He said that he feared worshippers would continue to pray outside.
"I am in an uncomfortable position and I am afraid there will be a climate of anarchy," he said.
THE TIMES
I mean really? The Interior Minister has nothing against Islam, but he doesn't want to see it?
- Login to post comments
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Natural, there have been world wars which were simply not called by the term. England and France went down that road after the American Revolution.
=
*grins* You are damn strict with your skepticism constantly, aren't you? I respect that.
I can't even prove I'm a real person to you without faxing you a copy of my birth certificate. *grins* Eh.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Relevance?
=
Sorry, AIGS I'm simply not interested in niggling over what word or set of symbols you use to call this thing I call WWIII. What I'm talking about is WWIII as is popularly known, and as most people would read Watcher's original comment where he used those five little symbols.
He seemed to be advocating WWIII (i.e. large scale nuclear war, as most people would read that), and I was arguing against that.
If he meant something else, then I'm not really interested in arguing over that, except to the extent that a 'world war' will likely (or not) end up using large scale nuking. (Or other world-wrecking tech.)
I'm arguing from Sam Harris' angle that we've arrived at a time in history where our technology is too powerful to either a) fall into all-out world war, or b) let slip into the control of extremist ideologues who have no compunctions against using them.
Normally, I'd argue about definitions all day long, when it makes a difference to my point. In this case, it doesn't.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I'm not that strict, Watcher. You posting comments is proof enough for me.
I'm not looking for 100% absolute logical proof. I'm just looking for your line of reasoning, and what you are basing it on (what evidence/citations).
To me, the risk of massive world-wrecking is way too huge to be talking about instigating/advocating/whatever a worldwide war. Unless you can show that it is "realistic" that such a large-scale war wouldn't chaotically spin out of control as such wars do and end up in large scale nuking, then I don't see how you could in good conscience make that kind of argument. (Unless it was totally in jest, maybe.)
So, I'm just saying, why do you think it's 'realistic'?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Well, I will let Watcher define his own terms. Still, we have three wars going right now, all in Muslim nations. Still, the war on terror has yet to infect Northern Ireland. Because we are not at war with that batch of assholes.
Then too, I don't see a good reason to go there. They did not attack us. We are not at war with Islam as such but with Islamics. I really could not care less about Abdoul N. Goatfucker. I do care about the fact that we are at war with a bunch of assholes.
I really don't much care if that is ww3 or ww10. There are some people who need to be schooled on how to behave. If that means nuking the damned black cube that god lives in, then fuck it.
=
So far, we actually agree. Information is a pretty easily duplicated resource, yes, and a well-informed populace tends to enjoy a better life than a poorly-informed one. No problems so far, but also quite irrelevant to what I was ranting about. Let me explain...
In your opinion, just like your opinion is largely negative of closed borders and non-social democracy policies. Does your wealth of knowledge in science, or that of Bob Spence's, easily translate into a wealth of knowledge in policy making, culture studies, sociology, and anything in between, like economics?? There is little way to ascertain this at first, but from my experience with Bob Spence so far, the answer would likely be 'no'. That you choose to belittle my place of residence, adds evidence to that a la
not that I am necessarily thin-skinned, so I can simply shake my head and read on. The place I've always lived in, and largely identify with culturally and politically, is the US. I can think of a few Canadians and Aussies that, apparently, identify with the exact opposite of the cultural and political norms here.
Immigration has a part in the downfall, just like education, outsourcing/job migration, crime (What I've read suggests it is more of a problem at present), and a continual decline in leadership along with a rise in special interest groups. You might claim that we Americans are better off with a bunch of plebs migrating inwards to borrow (rob, more accurately) off our money and internal strength, then send much of that money to some place international, like we are already doing with Chinese MFGs (a trade deficit), but you would be wrong. How do we protect ourselves against this sort of behavior? Well, I can think of only two ways: close down our borders, and/or educate the world's impoverished masses because several people think it's a swell idea. And it probably is a swell idea... for the people receiving said education. It isn't a great idea for a declining nation that's rapidly losing its resources on bad decisions made on past and present shitty leadership. The idiots we so choose to put into power have decided to feed the public to the lions, basically. Not much one person can do about that until the natives finally get tired of such Enron-esque bull. Mandatory education for fools who don't want to be educated isn't going to do a damn, either.
Cool! You have a correlation. Get back to me when you find the cause. (IE Soviet-bloc status, Iron Curtain, etc)
What exactly does diversity provide, besides an example of how not to do things? Maybe... limit your gov't charity to certain demographics, eh Europeans?
And how fast would you 'extinguish' yourselves in Canada? Does the world share the same fate if it is better educated? We already have H1B visas in America.
True, and I am, I just don't consider this to be the #1 probability of war in the future. That the Cold War became a fact of life so that two superpowers could avoid attacking each other directly, strengthens my belief in a different outcome than ending modern civilization. Yeah, nuclear attacks are ugly. We're beginning to move past them. That's all I was trying to say.
What does Harris have to say about WWIII anyhow, in one paragraph or less??
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Curiosity.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I hope you don't mean to say I'm advocating WWIII. I advocate closed borders and free-er markets, not everyone trying to conquer everyone else.
Also, ditto with the first paragraph. Only instead of WWIII, make it about everything else.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
RRS. Letting me define my own terms.
What? Am I babbling nonsense?
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
There has never, to my knowledge, been a time in recorded human history where there was no war at all on this world. Such a state of affairs is not the same as a 'world war'. If it was, then we would still be in the ten thousandth year of the very first 'world war', and we wouldn't be talking about number III.
That some nations are at war is nothing new.
Yes, it is conceivably possible that the current wars could somehow morph into a world-wide war, I somehow largely doubt that will happen. In any case, it hasn't happened yet. And if it did, we would still be just as fucked as what I'm talking about.
My concern is with the advocacy and/or defense of the idea of instigating a world-war, which is what Watcher's post seemed to be doing.
Ireland is rapidly becoming far more secular, and people are simply not as inflamed as they used to be. Many feel the shame of their previous generation's conflicts and are against that kind of thing happening again. It's a different culture than it used to be. It could still flare up, but I doubt it. The Catholic paedophilia scandals have massively damaged the church/religion in Ireland. They are far more likely to go the political route to further changes than any kind of terrorism.
This is a different argument again. Now you're talking about a single tactical nuclear target. Still think it's pointless and needlessly dangerous and risky (e.g. of triggering a WWIII), but I don't want to have to jump all over the place here. I'm against the advocacy of large-scale world war and/or large scale nuclear war and/or any smaller actions which have any significant risk of triggering large scale war. Period. That's my position on this particular topic.
There are far more effective (long term) and less risky methods of handling Islam that we should (IMO) be focusing on. Political, philosophical, rhetorical, social, educational, economical, scientific, etc.
Nuking some Muslims would not solve the problem of Islam. I also don't see how it would "school" them on "how to behave". Seems like the opposite lesson we should be teaching.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
After reading your whole post, I don't see how you've shown its irrelevance at all. Largely, I think you've completely missed its significance.
In your opinion, just like your opinion is largely positive of closed borders, blah blah blah.
I will admit it's my opinion. I also do not have the inclination to find specific studies or references to back it up. However, I don't see you doing that either. So pointing out that it's my opinion doesn't get you anywhere.
However I will say this. Despite the fact that it's my opinion, it is also based on my experiences having lived in Canada and Europe, having visited at least nine European countries, also Egypt, and discussing these kinds of differences with the natives of those countries, and also having grown up on a steady stream of American culture. I've got a pretty good handle on what makes a country healthy and what makes one rotten. I will not defend any country as perfect, or number one in everything. But some countries are simply healthier than others (this, I can defend with references). Some countries are getting healthier than they used to be, and some countries are on decline.
My opinions about immigration are largely based on those countries that do it well (e.g. Canada), and those countries that don't (e.g. US, France, though France is far better than the US).
What are yours based on?
Uh, what? I told you I couldn't remember your place of residence for sure. I didn't 'belittle' anything. That's in your head.
Well thank you for reminding me. As I asked. In a question. To show that I wasn't sure and wanted clarification. But apparently you decided to interpret as 'belittling'.
FYI, I was confusing you with someone else, which was why I asked if I was. I have no idea what Kapkao means, but your avatar has Cyrillic on it. It's not a huge leap to think you might be connected to Eastern Europe. We do actually have another member here who had moved to the US from an Eastern European country. Not sure what he's up to now, though.
No shit. Like, the majority of them, I would imagine. The 'cultural and political norms' in America are seriously fucked, on topics like this one. IMNSHO, I wouldn't use them as a standard for anything, if I were you. You can quote me on that.
You might claim that I might claim that, but you would be wrong. Gee, in fact I explicitly said I would not support such a naive policy.
Clearly, you have no concept of how Canadian immigration works. Otherwise, you would have seen how incredibly silly your straw man looks.
If those are the only two options you can think of, then you need to improve your ability to think of options. It's called a failure of imagination. The name of the fallacy is Argument from Incredulity. Look it up.
Hint: This 'problem' you've cooked up has already been solved. You don't even need to imagine the possibility. You only need to google it.
Ummm, the opposite of that? Wait a sec. Lemme just check, real quick. Yep. Definitely the opposite of that. It's cute how clueless you are on this topic.
Ummmm, never? Wait. Lemme check again. Yep. Never.
What part of 'integration' do you not understand? Or maybe it's the phrase 'educate children' that's confusing you? Our policy doesn't extinguish Canadians, it creates Canadians.
That it's not a realistic option, and that it is one of the most important reasons why we must strive for The End of Faith.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
No, I meant Watcher.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
The way muslims pray in Paris is to take over a street in thousands and block traffic and threaten those who protest. Anyone who fails to see this behaviour as akin to orangemen marching through catholic streets is not trying hard enough. Islam is not some fluffy bunch of church women selling lamingtons on a street corner to fund a new church hall. It's a facist political movement with stated goals that include the destruction of the host society.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
You know what my first thought was when I saw the picture of all those Muslims kneeling on the sidewalk? "Perfect targets for an ass-kicking."
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Very well put Atheistextremist.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I agree with this. It should be dealt with on those terms, of being a public threat, not of being 'offensive'.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I agree. If blocking the street is illegal it's still illegal if they're doing it while praying.
But the issue with "public threat" is that I'm sure some people will say merely being a Muslim or having a mosque [or any religion for that matter]etc... is a public threat.
Which is why I think this can open a nasty can of worms.
I read the other day of an English imam who has issued a fatwa on terrorism. As a result, muslim extremists have put a $10 million dollar bounty on his head. The point here is that it's a mistake to tar all with one brush. There are brave and righteous muslims in the world.
On topic, I wish god people would confine their worship to their houses. And I wish monotheism could be recognised as an undeniable expression of bigotry and be banned by international law. Monotheism should be considered as being as morally corrupt as homophobia, racism and sexism. Exclusion is its central core.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Ok, I think I've read you well enough. Without whining endlessly about whatever mental/cognitive deficits I have, I think I can safely say I am neither all that inclined towards researching my opinion, nor maintaining whatever level of knowledge I might have attained or will attain at a given point in time.
Justifying my opinions with supporting data? Heh, it was almost never a requirement of productive discussion at any of the places I've visited on the net in the past, probably due to their informal and toned down nature of thinking. I merely pointed out what I recognized as your collective opinion. That's been useful tactic for dealing with less-than-scientifically inclined minds than mine own at forums besides RRS. No need to be defensive, or even offensive like you claimed to have done in the past, again if I am reading the 'tone' of your post correctly. If I also recall correctly, you said RRS was one of the most thought-provoking places you have ever been to. Well guess what! The same is true for me, except much of what I read will occasionally go straight over my head (practically all of doctrines of logic, many parts of physics, chemistry is guaranteed to surpass my meager ability of comprehension at one point or another, etc). I get this, despite being told by complete strangers, family and friends... that I am quite intelligent. I guess compared to median intelligence (100, or 98 in the states), I do at least appear intelligent...
I come to RRS, suddenly the academic ways of thought often I despise or lament become the norm. Well piss on me, because I have almost no experience with modern, accredited academia (not 4-year universities, not even a lackluster community college education) thanks to what my psychiatrist terms "personality traits"... another words, things I can't modify without ginormous effort. Might have been helpful if someone had bothered to tell me this while I was slipping through the cracks of an already FUBAR education system, in one of the most "shallow end of the pool" cultures in the states while these personality traits were entrenching themselves in my brain. Of course, that last part is neither here nor there, and I'm not really helping myself by dwelling on it even for a few moments.
Most of this is relevant to this discussion, because, I still have a fucking long ass ways to go before I can come within sight of being able to converse with mods and "science freaks" here in a much more meaningful manner than I can, presently. A long ways to go... and if you give me a bunch of information to assimilate in an hour or less -like you did in your previous post-, I'm guaranteed to stumble over my own feet at every curb, metaphorically speaking.
Any questions, or are you already aware of how 'behind' RRS I am when it comes to understanding things like science, math, logic, history and... atheist/science trivia, which AiGS seems to specialize in?
Well now, this is the easy part for me. Who says that there isn't a silver lining under every dark cloud? Anyhoo...
Kapkao is the name of a toon/Player-character I met in an MMORPG. "KAKAO" is the German/Slavic spelling of Cacao, a chocolate luxury of some sort. It's a Russian advertisement for cocoa product, in so many words, and the lion represents the cocoa product. My current avatar serves the dual purpose of passively giving people hints at how to spell my name (cuz this is important shit!!), and vainly attempting to illustrate a Soviet business at the height of power in the Soviet empire using a capitalistic means of promoting good commerce. Another silver lining under every dark cloud, if you get my drift.
Iwbiek would probably know more. He almost always does regarding this one part of history... Bolshevism and Soviets, that is.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
So? They can 'say' whatever they want. If it's actually a public threat, then they should deal with it for that reason.
I'm almost certain it will. Because it has been festering for far too long, because France failed in its immigration policies.
Still, letting it fester more won't make it better, it will make it worse.
Here's how I would deal with it:
The characters:
Pierre: Guy with the unlucky job of having to explain why they have to restrict the street prayers
Alain: Asshole who thinks any move against Islam will backfire and cause terrorism, but is too afraid of offending Muslims to actually come right out and admit this.
Pierre: Due to the publicly threatening nature of incidents X, Y, and Z, we must restrict the practice of outdoor prayers in region K. We are attempting to help the local Muslim residents of that area locate suitable real-estate for them to purchase for a new mosque. In the mean time, we'll provide extra public transit service times to nearby mosques to alleviate the problem.
Alain: Islam is a religion of peace! How dare you say that all Muslims are a public threat?!
Pierre: If Islam is a religion of peace, then they won't mind peacefully complying with this order until they build the new mosque, will they? If they object to this, they can always peacefully take it to the courts, just like anybody else.
Alain: But there will be violent protests!
Pierre: Which would be a public threat, right?
Alain: Yes! -- Well, no! Argh! <brain explodes, trying to reconcile Islam=Religion of Peace with reality>
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Great. Just what we need. A Jihad Against Terror. Death to all terrorists! (And infidels, don't forget!)
We already have a Crusa-- War Against Terror that is a major form of terrorism itself. Le sigh.
What are the anti-terrorist martyrs going to do? Walk into a crowd of suicide bombers and blow themselves up?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Wouldn't that be ironically awesome...
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Not defensive (been on the net too long for that). Not offensive, except in pussycat with snark and indignation way. I'm a pussycat, seriously. Hambydammit's avatar, if you recall, was very appropriate for RRS, me included.
My tone in the comment to you was "slightly annoyed at presumptions, about me and the topic, being treated as facts", such as "That you choose to belittle my place of residence", when I didn't choose to do that. It was an honest mistake, but instead of asking for clarification, you just assumed I meant the worst. Now, I'm very used to that, and honestly it doesn't actually bother me anymore. These text/forum conversations are notorious for miscommunications, talking past each other, and something known as violent agreement. However, I'm prone to taking the tone I took with my comment to kind of emphasize the fact of that there's a hidden assumption being made. It's the pussycat with indignation. Seriously, I'm a pussycat. It's time I let you know.
I guess my point here, and in my latest blog post, is that I wish people would check their assumptions more, by asking honest questions, and not always trusting their first instincts. For example, a lot of the conflict on this thread could have been either a) avoided, or b) handled more constructively, by people simply asking an extra question or three, and presuming one or twenty fewer assumptions. I'm not perfect either, but my left Shift key and my ?/ key get a pretty heavy workout, usually.
Unsure of what my reasons/qualifications for my opinions are? Just ask me. I'll answer honestly. One of my comments seem like an out of place insult? Ask me if that's what I meant. Odds are, it wasn't, and I'll apologize readily.
Now, when I get snarky or indignant--which is most of the time, I confess--I usually (usually) still phrase my objections in a kind of question (unless I feel really confident about them). Maybe there's sarcasm, but it's usually ending with a ?. Not always, I suppose, and maybe I can improve on that. And maybe I could cut back on the snark. I'm experimenting constantly with different styles. But in any case, the crux of my snark in that post revolves around trying to draw your attention to the miscommunication, here:
I was not expecting to get accused of belittling you or your place of residence over asking where it was. But, something went awry there, and so I tried to point out the problem with my over-acted indignation.
Why indignation? Good question. Not sure I know. But I'm guessing because other methods, such as straight-out apologizing, or appealing to others for support, or various other methods, have in the past back-fired badly either for me or for people I've seen try to handle miscommunications that way. If one is too apologetic on the internet, or tries too much to get others to defend them, one is damn likely to get stomped on repeatedly. That's my feeling on it, I suppose. So, indignation works for me (perhaps too well, possibly), and so I use it to try to make my points. But really I'm a pussycat, just trying to be heard. <meow />
Indignation doesn't really hurt anybody, as far as I can tell, but I do suppose there may be cause for re-examining its overall effectiveness in communication. As in this case.
Glad to hear that's your experience too. I do want to say, that you are part of it too. I've had my thoughts provoked by all the regulars, on one occasion or another.
I think you are very intelligent, from what I've read. I suppose I can come off as a know-it-all, but I assure you it's part of the indignant pussycat act. I know lots, but a lot of what I know comes from knowing how to find out. Google is your friend. Although I put on know-it-all airs, I am not here to show off or shut others down or anything ego-related like that. I'm here to help confront the big problem of irrational, faith-based, dogmatic belief. The know-it-all act is to confront one of the most pernicious irrational beliefs, the belief that "Well, we can't really know anything anyway! So why bother?" My response is: "Oh yes we can! We can know lots! Look how much we know already!... uh, hold on a sec <google google> See?! Look at this stuff I kn--I mean--we know!" My hope is that this gives the can't-knows pause, makes them think differently, and challenges their assumptions. And I also hope it gives some of the can-knows some new bits of knowledge to spread around the planet. Or at least let them know where they can find it when they need it.
Well, I don't think you need experience with university or college, necessarily, to engage in conversations here. It might help, but personally, I think the most important thing is willingness or desire to learn. Maybe the hardest lesson to learn would be along the lines of: Just about anything you state as a fact is going to get challenged by someone. So, don't state things as facts unless you know for sure that they are.
To handle this, I use lots of wiggle-words like: seems like, could be, may be, many, most, some, various, usually, almost always, almost never, I think, I'm guessing, IMO, whatever, e.g., etc. etc., et al
This lets me say whatever the fuck I want to say without fear of getting challenged on it, because I'm not actually stating it as some fact, just a vague general opinion.
Even more than that, I rely on questions questions questions. Especially in debates. Instead of making my own claims, I quite often (ah, wiggle room) just relentlessly challenge my opponent's claims, and sit back and watch them squirm (this is snarky pussycat talking).
Or, if I genuinely want to learn something, such as why a person thinks what they think (rather than trying to make some point), I'll just ask straight-out questions, instead of phrasing it like a challenge.
Well, I just regret giving you the impression that I think you're 'behind' in any way. That was definitely not my intention, and I think the pussycat has been a very bad kitty.
I've got my own hobbyhorses, and maybe I 'show off' in those areas too much, but I'm in no way doing it to try to put anyone down, though the snark may come across that way. I'll definitely be thinking about this for a while.
Come to think of it, it may have been Iwbiek I was thinking of. Still not sure, though.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I have the impression that X clique around here feels that I am behind in many subjects, and it is the interpretation that I have as well. Not as well studied, so on and so forth. I also do not feel very highly about my own wealth of knowledge of different skills or subjects. I can think of one or two people here that have demonstrated a lack of confidence in my abilities so far (Bobspence? AiGS?), and every now and then their attacks are justified. That Bobspence speaks an unusual, more 'scientifically oriented' dialect of English, and Answers likes to go at me sometimes with the most meaningless of esoteric trivia on any number of subjects, both of which diminishes whatever ability to engage. He calls this being a "geek". I call it flamboyant OCD acting up, again. As for...
Ah, yes. Using rhetoric to grease the gears of conversation... it's already a dated technique in the present day, if the root word of "rhetoric" (classical school of public speaking) gives any indication, and that conversations tend to revolve around a handful of subjects (pure science, technology, rationalism, skepticism, secularism, the obsolescence of philosophy etc) tends to add to my conviction of not relying too heavily on rhetoric. I can assure you, using inexact English is NOT in my game plan, even if I do so subconsciously anyways. You'll need more than challenging my claims to convince me otherwise, as challenging claims is not some new, radical social phenomena that I lack contact with. I encountered it with my high school teacher (earliest memory) that I had for 3 consecutive grade school years. I've encountered it online as early as 2000.
Yeah... you're erratic, which means you think a great deal like I do. More so than I originally estimated, but I am no more inclined to trust you based on this and
you suddenly being accommodating towards me.
As for checking my assumptions, well... here's an assumption to check
So, this is one of your principles. Tell me, what exactly qualifies as "humans", in your case? Homo Sapiens Sapiens; "Wisest Man"? Someone who shares xx.yy% of my DNA? Someone who shares Christnut-complex "Imago Dei"? Someone who isn't a member of X-ethnicity? And what do I gain from enabling equality of other "humans"? The answer seems to be "nothing". I have a lot to potentially gain from enabling stratification (read: bedrock principle) and distributing limited resources based on a person's capacity to use them effectively, in a relative sense. That I could potentially fall ill to social stratification thanks to human nature, does not diminish my level of moral value in it. "Equality is equality", but from my PoV, "equality" is irrelevant (read: relies too heavily on compassion). Popularity of my PoV is irrelevant. Status of "Humans" or "people" is ultimately irrelevant. Egalitarianism is irrelevant. Efficiency is all-important (again, read: bedrock principle). Compassion is weak, inefficient, an obsolete instinct, and therefore irrelevant. "Pussycat" is irrelevant. "Hobbyhorses" is...
...you do not "put know-it-all airs" on as much as others I could name. Some of these others post here. Many of them do not. Many use "know-it-all airs" as a tactic to overinflate things "ego-related". You are, at least, honest that egalitarianism is one of your goals.
I suspect you feel "indignation" and a willingness to express "snark" over my views, but understand that my desires and ambitions are ultimately irrelevant. That someone else is potentially capable of enabling my bedrock principles more effectively than I am, is not irrelevant. I would like to find them, however.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Hey, when it works, it works. I'm not against rhetoric. I think it's necessary to use it, in this 'present day' of Fox Newses and Sarah Palins. I'm against empty rhetoric and irrational claims wrapped in rhetoric. But when the public is swayed by rhetoric, I'd be a fool not to use it at least to some extent. In fact, much of my efforts could be described as experimenting with wrapping rationality in rhetoric.
It's not a sudden thing on my end, if you've been paying attention to my recent posts. But fair enough. I would rather you be skeptical than not, so no biggy.
I believe the context of that was clear if you look at the nearby sentences, but I'm too lazy right now to quote them. Human as in human rights. People as in "We the People", i.e. legal definition of 'person', excluding corporations and other non-human people (for the sake of simplicity of discussion). Equality as in equal rights and 'created' equal.
FYI, I have somewhat uncommon views on 'person', especially with regards to intelligent animals. Suffice to say that I'm the opposite of a speciesist, and choose not to call myself a 'humanist' largely for that reason. I simply used the words 'humans' and 'people' and 'equality' because they are largely understood and do not need to be debated in this context where the entities under discussion are actually literally human people with equal human rights.
The whole 'imago dei' and X-ethnicity thing is laughable in my case. To suggest I may have meant ethnicity, in this context, is frankly absurdly funny. (This is not snarky cat, this is honest truth. I seriously do find it absurdly funny when someone hints at (or straight out accuses) me being diametrically opposite to what I am.)
A better world? More interesting friends? Less conflict? Happiness? For me they are not questions. To you, I pose them. (There are more, and ones more tangible, but these will do for now, because I'm curious about your response to them.)
I suggest, in a not-so-snarky way, to consider the possibility of a failure of imagination.
What do you mean by 'stratification' (more detail), and to what extent? What do you mean by bedrock principle? That it is one for you? Or something different than that?
Why not? Unless you're already one of the elite, seems like a bad gamble to me. Like buying a lottery ticket.
We're a compassionate species, or haven't you noticed? (Snarky cat, but serious question in there.)
That needs explanation/elaboration. It is central to this topic.
How so?
Efficiency of what, specifically?
Evolution refutes this (just so you know). Also, it is not a trivial claim, and requires substantiation.
It's more of a generalized habit, not directed at you or your views any more so than any others I don't understand.
Does not compute. (<< Silly, but expressing confusion, not dismissal.) Why do you say this?
I do not understand what you mean by the first sentence, and so I do not understand the second sentence either. What does 'enabling my bedrock principles' mean?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Apologies ahead of time if I'm way off base, but I believe Kap is trying to educate himself and looking for people who can help him. Experts in science tend to go way over the heads of average laymen, using terminology that often requires education to understand. It's why I'm always looking for simple analogies that can convey processes without getting hung up on words a lot of people don't know (myself included on occasion).
As an aside, I must apologise to Kap because I'm pretty sure I've contributed to his feelings of detachment from the RRS. It is never my goal to belittle people (unless they start it), but I know my ego and my self confidence can often come across as beligerant. It's a result of arguing against theists as long as I have, and it's something I can't really turn on and off. Couple that with a patience that can wear thin very quickly when I have to repeat myself or when something I consider to be common sense is questioned, and you have someone who can be overly dismissive and harsh.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Just know that I don't get grudgy. I might call you a fucking idiot in one topic out of frustration, only to agree with you completely in another. In reality I don't really believe that you're a fucking idiot. If I did, I wouldn't even speak to you in the first place. And it works both ways. You could call me a fucking idiot in a topic, and I probably will leave it in that topic. Exception being when I get the feeling someone is using the tracker to attack me in multiple topics at the same time. Which has happened once or twice.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
If that is the case (confirm, Kap?), then I am extremely (no exaggeration) willing to help, and will adapt my style to fit whatever works to be helpful. I've been tutoring math, science, and computers now for over a year (all ages, including adults), and find that I really enjoy it. I end up learning a lot when I do, and did I mention I love learning? That's no exaggeration either.
I understand the 'over my head' problem, and that has been one of my goals (e.g. wonderism) for a long time to address it.
Me too. I'm always trying to think up new metaphors and examples to try out. I've found some good ones, too, even ones I haven't tried here yet.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
This is what you don't get. YOU DON'T SINGLE OUT LABELS, you enforce common law. If PETA were blocking your path the same crime is being committed. All singling out particular labels does is serve to divide the society.
The bottom line is NO ONE has the right to impede your motion. You could be protesting as a strike against a buisness. You could be protesting for secular reasons as well and you STILL do not have the right to block other people from their path.
The good intent France has in putting it's foot down against religious nuts wont work. Intent is not my issue, TACTIC IS, and this is NOT the way to do it.
Here in America for example, there are JWs and LDS idiots who do not respect personal propterty rights and WILL walk into your house uninvited. The crime is not their religion, the crime is trespassing.
The way France can marginalize these nuts, is not by using government to stop them from praying, but to apply the law equally and allow freedom of speech equally. This WILL NOT work and WILL have a very negative affect long term if allowed to be fostered. It can and will lead to the government becoming the thought police beyond people's personal beliefs. That is something no one should want, ESPECIALLY ATHEISTS.
The government should not play morality or thought police. When a government starts doing that it can become theocratic fascism or state fascism, but the result is the same, a rigid society where openness and progress are squashed.
You falsely make this about a label, when I am talking about human nature. And since humans are all subject to the same range of emotions and actions the law should be about what we have in common, not what we don't have in common.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well everyone has their own interests, Kapkao. I don't think anyone should feel bad because some people know more about certain subjects than others.
For myself my favorite subject is evolution with a special focus on human evolution. But I enjoy all kinds.
I have read a number of books on physics and the cosmos for the layman. If numbers start getting thrown everywhere I start to ignore it though. I'm just not that much into advanced mathmatics.
Philosophy makes my eyes glaze over in a heartbeat. Back in the day on here there were some incredibly lengthy discussion among members about it. I tended to avoid them for the most part if not almost entirely.
History is great though. I often read and study that subject.
There used to be a microbiologist on here that was just absolutely amazing with his rants. Mind you, I couldn't follow along with his technical jargon very well at all but it made me intensely curious. So I've been studying biology, chemistry, organic chemistry, etc. I'm certainly no kind of expert in any sense of the word on any of it. But I enjoy learning more about it.
And for me that's the point. Not to reach some impressive knowledge on any of the subjects that interest me at any set date, but just to slowly increase my knowledge of it little by little.
If any discussion get's too involved on something I'm not really all that interested in pursuing though I tend to simply walk away from it.
Back after I first started coming here I practically lived on the forums arguing with christians and whatnot. After a while I started getting tired of wasting my breath at religious people that simply weren't going to take the time to learn anything. Why should I waste time when I could be learning with trying to educate such people? I just didn't see it as the most effective use of this life.
So just take in what interests you, and don't lose your love of learning those subjects by trying to learn a subject that you have no or very little interest in. That'll just burn you out.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
What I do get Bri is that you are still a fucking idiot trying to be PC (but failing miserably ).
Quoted from me on page one:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with "labeling" people. That's the best way to tell an xtian from a muslem and a smart person from a fucking idiot.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Strawman.
The law is to prohibit public prayer. It does not distinguish between religions.
So, you're talking out of your ass once more, and don't actually have a cogent point to make, as I pointed out in my previous post.
Let me put it to you in terms that your brain is intimate with, this is a 'huddle' of hate for the Infidel. This is a mob assembling to reinforce their love of Koran, and their hatred of the Infidel. These are people who want to kill over a fucking cartoon.
You can kid yourself all you want, but stop pissing in my ear and tell me it's raining.
Why? Because Brian37 declares it so?
Strawman.
They're not trying to pass a law to prevent people from praying. Are you this obtuse on purpose, or do you have comprehension problems?
These people are not just praying in the streets, they're inciting complete and utter hatred, and calling for Shariah law.
Mosques are broadcasting sermons and chants of "Allahu Akbar" via loudspeakers in the streets.
The French are correct in characterizing this as an attempt at an Islamic occupation of France.
Islam is not, and never has been about peace, tolerance, and benevolence to non believers.
If you knew anything about European history (even recent history), you'd know how Muslims have moved in and burned out entire communities in the past, in other European countries.
The fact is you don't know jackshit, and you're about as sharp as a ball of wet cotton.
Your constant diatribes filled with little more than a display of your utter ignorance and your strawmen are really puke worthy.
1- Show 1 example that they're being 'thought police'. I fucking challenge you.
2- Show how governments DO NOT play 'morality police'. I fucking challenge you.
No, you're wrong.
Strawman.
Stop wasting bandwidth with your bullshit...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I concur.
or at least be a man and call a spade a spade, Bri.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }a:link { }
OK, obviously, you have read or are reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Exactly that scenario is used as a weapon by the rebels on the moon.
Now that having been said, Chicxulub was probably about 10km in diameter so it is unlikely that anyone is going to specifically build up such a mass and even if they did, it would likely be more than the launch system could handle. While the book did not say how big the rocks were, remember that the launch system was designed to send cargo back to earth, so I would tend to assume that they would be roughly the size of a standard shipping container.
Past that, you also need to know the material the projectile is made from, the material at the impact site and the velocity of the projectile. For the velocity, starting with the fact that orbital velocity at 100km is roughly 43,000km per hour and assuming that additional velocity is gained during the infall, I would tend to think that an impact velocity of around 50,000 to 60,000km per hour would be reasonable.
For the rest of the deal, I would suggest that you try using the asteroid impact simulator:
http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/
I ran some reasonable numbers through that and it seems that there would be no real impact but it would still dump enough energy into the atmosphere that it would crush most small buildings out past 100km and twist steel framed building so badly that they would collapse in a matter of hours.
=
a fatwa is just a religious/legal edict stating that terrorism is against the teachings of Islam. Given death to the infidel is preached widely, an Imam actually putting pen to paper and risking his neck on this issue is a big deal.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Not really classified info there. Horrifying but easy enough to look up. There were 4 test series at Bikini and a total of 60 bombs set off. I could list them all if you are curious but I think he probably means Operation Castle which had six bombs.
Very likely he was specifically on about Castle Bravo. I mentioned that briefly above without going into details but it was the largest detonation ever (apart from the Soviet Tzar Bomb which was never planned for deployment but just to show us Americans what they could do). Due to not doing enough research, we did not know one aspect of bomb design and it ended up blowing at 25MT when it had been predicted to go at 6MT.
Also @ Kapkao, I had another look at your original question.
The multi-megaton bombs were a creature of the 60's. The reason was that at the time, we did not have good enough rocketry, so we had to use B-52s to get them in. Assuming that we would lose many of them in such an attack, we made sure that they would maximum impact if they did not reach the intended target.
And yes, the bombs would have gone off even if the planes were shot down. The system is called “fail deadly”. Once the bombs are armed (and at that time, all bombs were armed all the time as the arming code for all US weapons was 000000), the moment they drop below the detonation altitude, well BOOM TIME.
Once we got to the point where we could use ICBMs, we shifted to much smaller weapons. By 1974, the last of the multi-megaton weapons had been removed from service. Right now, the biggest bomb we have is a grand total of 5 weapons with a yield of 1.45MT yield, At least that is the number which are actively able to be delivered should the shit go down. There are 150 in back up which could also be delivered in a short time but they would have to be checked out of the warehouse.
Possibly more interesting is the fact that we have 625 of the “dial a yield” weapons which can be set to as little as 300 tons TNT equivalent.
=
Two of my favorite videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sandycane?feature=mhsn#p/f/27/b9nwr4FtKaQ
http://www.youtube.com/user/Sandycane?feature=mhsn#p/f/28/l8w3Y-dskeg
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Have you seen "The Atomic Cafe"?
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qWwtKypdXQ
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88ipO_i1FHY
=
Unfuckingbelievable. I wanted to laugh and cry at the same time.
So, after they fried the little piggies in the trenches someone thought it was a good idea to place humans in the trenches... and then make them walk towards the blast?
Makes me ashamed to be a member of the human race.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Damn I'm glad I missed that decade.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I was born in '57 and I remember a few times in elementary school when all of the classes had to go out into the hall. I don't recall doing the "duck & cover" maneuver though.
I remember having to watch a movie on concentration camps.
I suppose as a child in the 50s and 60s I was content with Barbies and Creepy Crawlers and had no clue as to what was going on in the world around me. Thank goodness for that.
Even during the 70s, I knew nothing about foreign affairs -- except when a boyfriend was given the choice between jail or military service.
Ignorance IS bliss.
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Heck, I remember it even though I started school in '79. The movie "The Day After" came out when I was a kid. I had nightmares growing up about Nukes.
The Russians were like the monster in the closet.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
I never ran into any of that.
I think I would have been seeing right through that duck and cover bs. Never was much for blind belief in the statements of authority figures (possibly thanks in part to encounters with religious nutballs), and I can't conceive believing that such a strategy would in any way work. Bomb goes off and you're dead, dying, far away, or Indiana Jones in a fridge.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You know, come to think of it, before I found the Internet, I really wasn't much concerned with things that happened that didn't directly affect my little world.
The Internet has made "Them" seem more like "Us," to me anyway.
Homogenization of the planet.
"We and They"
by Rudyard Kipling
Father, Mother, and Me,
Sister and Auntie say
All the people like us are We,
And everyone else is They.
And They live over the sea
While we live over the way,
But—would you believe it?—They look upon We
As only a sort of They!
We eat pork and beef
With cow-horn-handled knives.
They who gobble Their rice off a leaf
Are horrified out of Their lives;
While they who live up a tree,
feast on grubs and clay,
(Isn't is scandalous) look upon We
As a simply disgusting They!
We eat kitcheny food.
We have doors that latch.
They drink milk and blood
Under an open thatch.
We have doctors to fee.
They have wizards to pay.
And (impudent heathen!) They look upon We
As a quite impossible They!
All good people agree,
And all good people say,
All nice people, like us, are We
And everyone else is They:
But if you cross over the sea,
Instead of over the way,
You may end by (think of it!) looking on We
As only a sort of They!
'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein
Advocating for a global conflict on the grounds that nukes probably won't be used? Dude, you're retarded.
Even if the war was fought with swords and arrows only, a global conflict is so out of civilian control, that you would regret the shit you are now spewing instantly. Or at least once some local martial law enforcer sends you off to a work camp so that he can have easier access to your house & wife. You think the US army is somehow magically on your side? Buddy, they are executing US citizens legally now.
Over and over again I stand in awe of the ability of US educational & media propaganda system to create bullshit bravado in essentially powerless civilian cretins. It's like the next step from turning up the heat slowly - now they get the frogs to think the pot is theirs and that sitting in boiling water equals power.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Nice avatar pic. Maybe if you spent less time shooting up steroids and pumping iron to impress the "bitches" and more time reading and contemplating ideas I could have an adult conversation with you.
As it stands I feel like you're speaking to me from a high school football shower room.
Go fornicate yourself. Or commit your weekly date rape. Whatever you kids do these days.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
You get all that from an avatar photo? Wow.
No, the reason you won't have an adult conversation with me is because you grew into an adult who doesn't have adult conversations. Still, try to do your kids a favor and stop advocating global war. I hope a date-rapist and an inbred redneck can at least agree that uncontrolled mayhem is not good.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
I am not against "labeling" in the sense that humans use short cuts to describe everything from politics, to religion to food.
The best way to avoid needless division is to allow bitching and agree not to kill over that bitching. That way we can call each other "fucking idiots" without fear of death.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog