OK, at least 2) of the original makes sense - Amnesty International has concerned itself with blood diamonds as an organization: it makes sense to think that women at an AI meeting would know about blood diamonds. It's also a fairly common liberal concern.
My guess is that the OP is liberal, and simply was citing groups that he had experienced to be likely to know about blood diamonds.
There are probably social causes that conservatives are more well-versed in than liberals, but not being one, I honestly wouldn't be able to come up with any offhand.
I live in Virginia too, so here's some advice: 1) Get out of the state. Your tuition will probably be at least 10% higher next year, as far as I can tell. Ever since Gilmore screwed us up with the car tax, the schools have had to cut costs and raise tuition.
2) If you're looking in-state, why UVA? It's about as much of a liberal arts college as there is (and William & Mary is a better one) - VT is far less expensive, and you'd probably learn more about ELEG or CPEG there.
3) Always willing to pimp my school - University of Delaware... we've got a good ELEG and CPEG department, and if you're smart, you can probably get a really nice scholarship package.
... I'm pretty sure all of those are the requirements to run Windows XP. Seriously... the only thing optional about any of those for running XP is the sound card, and maybe the video card.
And another thing: how many people do you know who actually look at the hardware requirements? I don't ever think I've met a non-geek who has.
The man who wrote the letter that I quoted was identified; however, the author of the essay the letter was quoted in (my source) would not identify the man as he remained in the state correctional facility at the time of printing.
I think you've shown that you don't know what you're talking about.
Like CNN showinf dead Iraqi children but never showing someone dying from 9/11. But then again that was here in the United States and they must not have reporters here. Or maybe they are just showing there anti-us attitude again.
Or maybe, and believe me, this is a hypothetical, they didn't show the dead from September 11th because dead Iraqi children had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Or, to generalize further, Iraq had nothing to do with Sep. 11.
Or maybe it's because two wrongs don't make a right, and CNN realized that killing Iraqi civilians isn't justified by dead American civilians, even if Iraq had been responsible for Sept. 11.
Maybe that in the ignorant person in me talking. But I would rather be ignorant than uninformed like you. If you watch CNN you only see Anit-US stories.
Anti-US stories like what? East Timor, where we basically green-lit the Indonesian invasion? What's that, you've never heard of it? I figured that the anti-US CNN would have been telling that story. Anti-US, about all those anti-globalization protestors that were illegally jailed by DC Police Chief Ramsey?
Why do I always miss those liberal, anti-US stories?
"I know that thieves must be punished and I don't justify stealing, even though I am a thief myself. [sic] but now I don't think I will be a thief when I am released. No, I'm not rehabilitated. It's just that I no longer think of becoming wealthy by stealing. I now only think of killing - killing those who have beaten me and treated me as if I were a dog. I hope and pray for the sake of my own soul and future life of freedom that I am able to overcome the bitterness and hatred which eats daily at my soul, but I know to overcome it will not be easy." -- Anonymous (Down to Earth Sociology, p 273).
Remember kiddies - sending non-violent offenders to prison to be "beaten by guards, sprayed with chemical mace, blackjacked, stomped and thrown into a strip-cell naked to sleep on a concrete floor without bedding, covering, wash basin or even a toilet" is the surest way to ensure a reduction in crime! Anal rape is merely a secondary or tertiary option.
Additionally, JWL joined up in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, and my understanding of the law was that since he joined before they were "the enemy", it wasn't treachery.
In either case you take your chances, but I'd personally rather take my chances at being thrown in jail for a couple weeks for something I didn't do (the chances of which seem pretty remote to me) than being shot at by a known sniper or blown up by a known terrorist (the chances of which seemed pretty good to me as I watched the WTC burn outside my window on 9/11).
Agreed, but with reservations. Preferably, the government would do this *extremely* selectively, so that when they did it, it didn't come across as Gestapo bullshit. Some of the crap the government has pulled, though - (I don't know if you guys heard about the US veteran of Gulf War I: A New Hope who was detained for being a suspected terrorist. The grounds - he played paintball too much with some people who had been to Pakistan)... it makes it harder to take them at their word. And for the record, my personal experience in Sept. 11 was hoping that my father wasn't in the wrong part of the Pentagon at the wrong time (he was OK).
I'm not saying the US government is made up by a bunch of saints or that they're always looking out for the interests of its citizens. What I am saying is, in this case at least (and no doubt many others like it), I am glad this guy was in jail from the beginning. He's an admitted conspirator against the United States and its citizens.
As I said in an above post - probably. The plea bargain still smells a little fishy to me. I dunno, I hope I'm wrong on this.
That means the guy that thinks it is right to go to a war zone (where, BTW, attacking and defending merge into one, so your spinny use of "to defend" and "to provide mercenary military aid" was kinda annoying), by definition of the religious authorities from whence he gets his definition of "what is right", also thinks it is right to plant "a bomb in your home town/state/country (where it may kill your own family members)".
Not all people blindly agree with all of the dictates of their faith: see Catholics and birth control, most world religions in general and religious tolerance, etc.
I don't propose we sink to that level, but we certainly would be stupid and naieve to ignore the fact that there are no "honorable" jihadists out there. If they're looking to help Taliban, and we can get a hold of them, we should decide what to do with them under the assumption that they may do 911-ish things given the chance.
Taliban != al Qaeda. The Taliban was the government of a country that was invaded. Invaded justly, as far as we can tell, but invaded nonetheless. To accuse him of being a terrorist & a traitor, rather than just the apparently substantiated claim of him being a traitor, is a bit of a stretch.
I still have a bad feeling about this... I'm sorry, but it reeks a little of The Crucible. Sure, he could have easily done what he was accused of, but to quote Reagan: "Trust, then verify."
Or maybe you're just lucky? It's a well-documented fact that Arab (and Arab-looking) people were openly mocked, derided, and attacked in some areas.
And, to be perfectly honest, did you ever consider that it was maybe the fact that you shaved that made the difference? In my personal experience, people tend to respond more negatively to bearded individuals (why I keep fairly clean-shaven).
Some reading material: Hate crimes after Sept. 11. Fortunately, the reported number went down after a bit, but this clearly shows that there was an rash of attacks after the WTC and Pentagon were attacked.
This is a false argument - a "hate crime" (God, I hate that term, since it's really not accurate) is essentially a minature form of terrorism.
Let's use what happened after September 11th. People were going out and beating up Arabs (or even people that looked like Arabs), simply because they were the wrong ethnicity. The effect was a fear of going out in public, because you never knew when a person felt like venting.
The crime is punished more harshly, not because of your motivation, but rather, because of the additional effect of your crime.
You and I are both talking about a man named Joe. I say that Joe is married and has a kid. You swear up and down that Joe is still a swinging bachelor. Are we talking about the same man?
Arguably, yes. One or the other (or possibly both) of us could be mistaken on the details of his life, but that doesn't mean that since our stories don't match, we aren't discussing the same man.
A quote from ReligiousTolerance.org (an excellent site for information about just about every religion) - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three closely related religions. Because they all revere Abraham and certain other patriarchs mentioned in the Bible as their spiritual ancestors, they are called Abramic religions. (The Baha'i world faith is sometimes also included in this grouping.)
OK, this is one reply to address many of the threads that have cropped up, since it's basically become a pile-on.
I don't think I ever stated what my beliefs are, with the exception that I don't like James Randi. I explained this because I feel that he is arrogant, an opinion come by reading some of his commentaries. I explained that I was not attacking the method of his experiments, but rather his methods in said commentaries, and the nature of his $1,000,000 prize.
It is this sort of groupthink that prevents any serious research from getting done. Rather than let impartial scientists study the 'paranormal', the subject is attacked with an unparalleled viciousness. The only people that therefore do the studies are generally zealots that are preconvinced that the 'paranormal' exists.
None of you really know me. You don't know who I am, what I believe, what I think is a crock of shit, or who I chose to trust. Several have claimed that I am resorting to ad hominem attacks, and I ask, "Where?" Instead, I have been called a moron who believes in invisible snorks, trusts everything he reads, and just an imbecile who doesn't understand the scientific process.
I wish this were a Troll, because then I'd feel proud about the sheer volume of replies I'd gotten.
The few posts that even *read* the last paragraph of my post were generally decent, though we continue to disagree. I wasn't trying to proselytize and change anyone's religion, merely state my opinion.
I now understand what all the trolls are bitching about when it comes to going against Slashdot group-think. I'm so very sorry for offending your sensibilities by having an opposing opinion.
Finally, we can get to the root of my dislike of the man.
Randi doesn't look at purely metaphysical claims (and nor could he).
No, he doesn't examine them. He does not, however, have any qualms about out-and-out insulting those who make purely metaphysical claims.
And perhaps I misused the word random - I meant that the persons involved have absolutely no control over them, and there is no seeming pattern to their occurance. Perhaps psuedo-random would be a better term, since the events themselves probably have some root cause, much like rand() has a seed and a formula, but without knowing that root cause, we don't have an understanding of the phenomena.
Right, but I also said that the initial claim should be treated untrue unless I can get proof.
I have absolutely no reason to believe you. My not absolutely disbelieving you does not mean I believe you (wow, a triple-negative sentence that parses correctly). To pull the meaning out a little bit: The fact that I do not actively disbelieve you does not mean that I do, in reality, believe you.
I land on the "probably doesn't exist" on the idea of a giant invisible space hamster that wants me to send it $100, though, since I have met no one who sincerely believes in such a creature. The circumstantial, non-scientific, evidence comes down against you, I'm afraid. Sorry, no $100 for you.
Since I can't prove that your fictional self doesn't exist, I call bullshit on the grounds that you're making shit up to make me look dumb, and with that in mind, it's unlikely your claims are true. Admittedly, it's not scientific criteria, but it's enough evidence for me.
So what you're saying is that you still don't understand. How many times does it have to be explained to you? The contest does not set "out to prove the nonexistence of 'paranormal' phenomena." It sets out to prove the existence of paranormal phenomena, which is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
Perhaps I don't understand. A contest, set up by a man who has no qualms about insulting those who do not actively disbelieve in the 'paranormal', sets up a challenge where, if an experiment results in conclusive evidence of something 'paranormal', he will pay the claimant a large sum of money, is somehow "setting out to prove" the existence or paranormal phenomena. "Setting out to prove" the existence of 'paranormal' would be going out and conducting research on the issue.
No, my (admittedly unscientific, since there is no way of proving it) belief is that Randi uses the million to lure people in, when you, I, and everyone else knows that a lot of people are kooks who will fail, to give people the impression that anything 'paranormal' is no more true than anything that is demonstrated for his prize. Before you even think it, I don't think this is some "conspiracy" to hide the existance of 'paranormal' phenomena, I simply think that it is a crappy way of going about things.
Your idea of a non-baseless claim is a a collection of rantings made on a website with no supporting evidence?
Pardon me, but I linked to a claim Randi made and evidence to the contrary of that claim by Schwartz, and a counterclaim. It might have been in a different reply.
So by your standards, the claim that you are a pedophiliac kitten-raping cocksucker is just part of a battle of heresay and the claims can't be resolved? Actually, yes, it is. I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm not, nor can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am, seeing as I am not.
You think it's the reader's duty to prove that the claims aren't true? You don't think it's the claiments duty to prove the claims true? Open that dictionary of yours to the word credulous.
Of course, now I know why you have stupid beliefs. You think you have to believe everything you read unless you can prove what you read is not true. Good luck proving the negative.
No, I don't think that it's the reader's duty to prove the claims aren't true. I merely state that, since neither side provides much support for their claims (let's not forget, Randi called into question all of Schwartz's research on the basis of a frame of a video - they're both making claims), that I can't *prove* that either side is right.
No, I do not think I have to believe everything I read is true unless I can find contradictory evidence. Rather, I do not dismiss claims about the 'paranormal' out of hand. I didn't think that made me a zealot with stupid beliefs.
It bothers me how quickly just about everyone has jumped to conclusions. I've had only a few responses that didn't immediately assume that I was some crackpot that was just mad because Randi had disproven my latest stupid belief. My only point was that Randi has a bias - a bias he freely admits. I didn't claim he was a fraud, or that he doctored trials. I really didn't realize that I wasn't allowed to say any of this, or that Randi was so worshipped within the Slashdot community.
Athiests are on the sturdiest ground. They say there's no verifiable evidence for the existance of god. Without such evidence, they take the reasonable action of not believing in a god.
See, this is where we disagree. While there is no verifiable scientific evidence of any sort of divinity, there is naturally no verifiable scientific evidence of a lack of any sort of divinity.
To reduce this to the ever popular "invisible pink unicorn" debate, I can't prove there are invisible pink unicorns. I also can't prove there aren't. Therefore, it is most reasonable to be unsure of their existance. I feel it'd be silly to actively disbelieve something exists solely because there is no evidence it exists, for the same reason I feel it'd be silly to actively believe something exists solely because there is no evidence it doesn't exist.
You think it's unreasonable to dismiss a view like this, but really it's the only thing to do. What if I tell you that the world doesn't actually exist anywhere you're not looking or sensing? Do you take my word for it? What if I offer poorly documented third-party claims, and first-person claims from people who "just know" it's true, but are unwilling to try to prove it? I don't believe you. However, if whatever revelation happened to those people suddenly happened to me, I'd believe it too. I wouldn't expect you to believe it unless you'd seen or felt the same things I had seen or felt. Personally, faith is a bit of a misnomer for me - I know what I've felt. Sure, I'd be willing to prove it to you, but I'm not entirely sure it's possible.
The only reasonable action to take is to act as if a claim like this isn't true unless you can get proof.
I agree. However, Atheists make a counterclaim - "There is no form of divinity whatsoever." This claim should be treated as untrue unless you can get proof.
Some claim that they merely disbelieve in God, and are not claiming that God does not exist. I'm not entirely sure how you can "not believe" in something without recognizing a possibility that it exists. This link has an interesting view about it. Don't worry - it's short, and has absolutely nothing to do with 'survival science'.
As for Randi himself, what bothers me is that he merely examines one religion to prove to himself that no divinity exists. While I also rejected Christianity for offending my sense of logic, I went from being an Agnostic to embracing a religion which is accused of being nutty by a lot of people, including Christians. My point is that his arguments against faith are just as flawed as Pascal's arguments for faith, in that they both consider solely Christianity.
Randi has only one requirement; that anyone who claims to have paranormal powers should be able to demonstrate them. That's all he asks, and he's put up a million dollars for anyone who cain demonstrate paranormal powers.
You said that Randi says "I'm right, even though I have no evidence. Prove me wrong", and you even put quotes around it, even though he NEVER SAID THAT.
I never said he did. I generally put quotes in italics.
I said: James Randi crosses the line from healthy skepticism to a "I'm right, even though I have no evidence. Prove me wrong" psuedo-scientist.
If I say he's a I'm-right-even-though-I-have-no-evidence-Prove-me- wrong pseudo-scientist, and make the whole thing one big adjective, that should remove your objection. I did not type it that way since it looks like crap.
Randi does just the opposite. He has never set out to disprove anyone, all he has asked is for people to prove themselves. And no-one can. He has been looking for proof for, what, 40 years, tested thousands of claiments, and every single one of them turned out to be making flase claims.
You accuse him of abandoning the scientific method, which is a lie. That's right, I called you a liar.
That's nice that you called me a liar - it really doesn't make it true. I feel that he's abandoned the scientific method since he is a passionate skeptic - he holds the view that anything viewed by our society as 'paranormal' is superstition, and the test, in my mind, is merely an elaborate method of trying to prove the negative (I'm going to use quotes here - these are *my* words) "No paranormal phenomena exist".
I love how everyone has jumped on me, like I'm some zealot. My post was not that offensive. Perhaps I should have added "I feel that..." to the beginning of my post to make it clear that it was opinion, but I felt that was intuitively obvious.
He uses the scientific method. Get that through your thick skull. Claiming otherwise is a LIE. He does double-blind experiments, agreed-to by both parties, run by an independent group who is also agreed to by both parties.
You are attempting to disparage him, most likely, because he has showed that one of your pet beliefs is full of hot air. Or you're one of those people who likes to steal money from gullible people in need. You're misguided or you're scum. And your beliefs are defenseless, so you attack the man. An ad hominiem, as your kind always turn to.
Now who's using ad hominiem attacks? I never claimed the man was a liar, or didn't honestly believe what he said. I merely think that he does the same thing he criticizes others for in going into experiments with strongly held beliefs, rather than agnosticism about the phenomena.
I'm not a scam artist, nor do I recall which 'paranormal' theories he has tested. I do know that from reading his commentary, he comes across as arrogant and 100% sure of his beliefs.
If a scientist placed a large bet on the outcome of an experiment, would you have faith in his credibility? I know I wouldn't. I also know that I don't place bets on things that I am agnostic about. I doubt that Randi walks up to a horse track and puts $1,000,000 on a random horse. No, I have a "pet belief" (your words) that he has no expectation of that money ever being given away.
Now let's think about the type of people that apply for $1,000,000 prizes. Do you think that he's really getting the intellectually honest people who are doing the research for the truth, rather than expected results?
You don't know my beliefs, except that I don't care for Randi's methods. I don't know how to explain why I don't care for them without "attacking the man." Perhaps you'd like to inform me?
I'm starting to understand why people don't argue with Anonymous Cowards. I'm willing to admit what I believe, without fear of reprisal from people as capricious as yourself.
I am aware of those facts, and as I have explained in *numerous* posts, I don't doubt that the individual trials follow the scientific method. My point was that the whole set-up of the contest, in my mind, does not follow the scientific method, since it sets out to prove the nonexistence of 'paranormal' phenomena.
For your information, I recieved an A on that paper. Not that you would know what that meant, because you don't know what the thesis of the paper was, whether I supported it with evidence, or even what class the paper was for.
Nice use of the word alleged. I hope you know what it means. It means that people who have been debunked by Randi make baseless accusations against him. People like you.
Yes, I do know what it means. You don't seem to, so I'll post the definition: Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.
It does not mean that said claims are false. It means that I can't prove those claims as true. I'm intellectually honest enough to admit it. The main reason they are "alleged" is not because they are baseless, but rather because it ultimately boils down to a battle of hearsay, and there really is no way to resolve that, since neither side has presented evidence to do so.
A simple example of implied accusation of fraud: From http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html - Were I a participant in the Schwartz operation, the kind of information that I would look for, may already be available, either through others who participated in the work, or from video records that seem to come to hand by mysterious means. Please note the video frame shown here. It was made from one of Schwartz's "scientific experiments" with John Edward. The "medium" has just taken his seat in the lab, adjacent to another chair to his left where the subject is located. This is what Schwartz considers to be "isolation" of the two persons. Lo! Do we perhaps see Edwards here taking a quick test peek through an opening in the partition? Say not so! This is science, tight controls and all that, and Schwartz himself told Edward, "There will be no eye contact, so a screen will separate you." I'll bet that Edward chuckled when he saw the set-up!
Now, I make no claim that Edward actually peeked through the opening during the "reading." If we had the original material, we could not only make that observation, but many others, as well. But we'll never see that. What I'm pointing out here is that the opportunity to peek was certainly there, and it should not have been, had Schwartz known how to -- or cared to -- implement proper security. It's not too hard to do, Dr. Schwartz, even for a Ph.D.
Here's the original video. According to the author, said hole was also patched up later, but no one has evidence of that, either way.
In the real world, the boy who cries wolf is quickly ignored. If you make claim after unjustifiable claim of alien abduction and anal probing, you're likely not going to be taken seriously when you claim that your detractors are kooks.
The problem is that legitimate researchers are lumped in with people you just dismissively referenced. If a scientist looks into psychokinesis, medians, or anything else referred to as 'paranormal' with anything other than a cynical mindset, he/she seems to be dismissed as a kook automatically.
I may have misspoke, since you misunderstood me. I recall reading complaints about the nature of the tests, hence why some individuals have refused to take them.
He simply starts out saying they should be able to pass a test that can show they can do what they claim to do.
This is something I can disagree with on its face. Not everything that exists is provable, not to mention that some claimed phenomena are, at their very nature, random.
Not everyone is interested in taking his test, yet my understanding is that he uses the lack of anyone succeeding in the test to 'prove' that there is no substance to any 'paranormal' claims.
I do appreciate your being reasonable, though. Being ripped apart for merely stating an opinion was not how I expected this thread to unwind.
As I said above, I'm not speaking of specific methods used to test claims, since I am no longer familiar with his methods. I am instead speaking of the way he goes about his work.
Does it matter if an astrologist follows the scientific method in testing claims, if he/she still assumes that his/her beliefs are true? As my recollection goes, a psuedo-scientist can still "follow the scientific method" in terms of experimental design, but if he/she has made a decision about the 'truth' before the research is done, that makes him/her a psuedo-scientist. Your definition may vary.
Unfortunately, I did a lot of this research fall semester last year, and rebuilt my computer since then, losing all of my bookmarks. I've got the papers I wrote, but I haven't found the information of Randi yet, since I don't know if I used it.
In this particular case, he was going to be allowed to test the claims, but forced to sign some sort of non-disclosure agreement about the results of the test. Well, Randi called bullsh*t, and if you think that is unreasonable, it is your right.
The author mentions this, and explains: VERITAS - When we learned how Randi operated, we decided that he could not be trusted to present the facts and the truth (see example below). Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi's praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design.
Examples of his alleged misrepresentations of other events follows. Granted, it comes down to he-said|he-said, and we've simply chosen different people to believe.
You neglected to mention, that quote was followed by:
However, this does NOT mean that I believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. Once again, skeptics make the mistake of confusing theory and predictions with personal belief.
This whole article is quickly becoming a karma-sinkhole, by the way. I got modded down Troll for pointing out a troll, and my above information, relevant to the conversation, was modded Flamebait. Maybe we can all have a discussion without trying to mod each other into oblivion, k?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, at least 2) of the original makes sense - Amnesty International has concerned itself with blood diamonds as an organization: it makes sense to think that women at an AI meeting would know about blood diamonds. It's also a fairly common liberal concern.
My guess is that the OP is liberal, and simply was citing groups that he had experienced to be likely to know about blood diamonds.
There are probably social causes that conservatives are more well-versed in than liberals, but not being one, I honestly wouldn't be able to come up with any offhand.
I live in Virginia too, so here's some advice:
1) Get out of the state. Your tuition will probably be at least 10% higher next year, as far as I can tell. Ever since Gilmore screwed us up with the car tax, the schools have had to cut costs and raise tuition.
2) If you're looking in-state, why UVA? It's about as much of a liberal arts college as there is (and William & Mary is a better one) - VT is far less expensive, and you'd probably learn more about ELEG or CPEG there.
3) Always willing to pimp my school - University of Delaware... we've got a good ELEG and CPEG department, and if you're smart, you can probably get a really nice scholarship package.
...
I'm pretty sure all of those are the requirements to run Windows XP. Seriously... the only thing optional about any of those for running XP is the sound card, and maybe the video card.
And another thing: how many people do you know who actually look at the hardware requirements? I don't ever think I've met a non-geek who has.
Perhaps I should have explained further -
The man who wrote the letter that I quoted was identified; however, the author of the essay the letter was quoted in (my source) would not identify the man as he remained in the state correctional facility at the time of printing.
I think you've shown that you don't know what you're talking about.
Like CNN showinf dead Iraqi children but never showing someone dying from 9/11. But then again that was here in the United States and they must not have reporters here. Or maybe they are just showing there anti-us attitude again.
Or maybe, and believe me, this is a hypothetical, they didn't show the dead from September 11th because dead Iraqi children had nothing to do with Sept. 11. Or, to generalize further, Iraq had nothing to do with Sep. 11.
Or maybe it's because two wrongs don't make a right, and CNN realized that killing Iraqi civilians isn't justified by dead American civilians, even if Iraq had been responsible for Sept. 11.
Maybe that in the ignorant person in me talking. But I would rather be ignorant than uninformed like you. If you watch CNN you only see Anit-US stories.
Anti-US stories like what? East Timor, where we basically green-lit the Indonesian invasion? What's that, you've never heard of it? I figured that the anti-US CNN would have been telling that story. Anti-US, about all those anti-globalization protestors that were illegally jailed by DC Police Chief Ramsey?
Why do I always miss those liberal, anti-US stories?
... You really want to take advice on human rights from a country as gripped by Wahabi Islam as Saudi Arabia?
While we're at it, we can ask Stalin how to deal with dissent gracefully, or Mussolini how to get Amtrak running better.
"I know that thieves must be punished and I don't justify stealing, even though I am a thief myself. [sic] but now I don't think I will be a thief when I am released. No, I'm not rehabilitated. It's just that I no longer think of becoming wealthy by stealing. I now only think of killing - killing those who have beaten me and treated me as if I were a dog. I hope and pray for the sake of my own soul and future life of freedom that I am able to overcome the bitterness and hatred which eats daily at my soul, but I know to overcome it will not be easy." -- Anonymous (Down to Earth Sociology, p 273).
Remember kiddies - sending non-violent offenders to prison to be "beaten by guards, sprayed with chemical mace, blackjacked, stomped and thrown into a strip-cell naked to sleep on a concrete floor without bedding, covering, wash basin or even a toilet" is the surest way to ensure a reduction in crime! Anal rape is merely a secondary or tertiary option.
Additionally, JWL joined up in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, and my understanding of the law was that since he joined before they were "the enemy", it wasn't treachery.
In either case you take your chances, but I'd personally rather take my chances at being thrown in jail for a couple weeks for something I didn't do (the chances of which seem pretty remote to me) than being shot at by a known sniper or blown up by a known terrorist (the chances of which seemed pretty good to me as I watched the WTC burn outside my window on 9/11).
Agreed, but with reservations. Preferably, the government would do this *extremely* selectively, so that when they did it, it didn't come across as Gestapo bullshit. Some of the crap the government has pulled, though - (I don't know if you guys heard about the US veteran of Gulf War I: A New Hope who was detained for being a suspected terrorist. The grounds - he played paintball too much with some people who had been to Pakistan)... it makes it harder to take them at their word. And for the record, my personal experience in Sept. 11 was hoping that my father wasn't in the wrong part of the Pentagon at the wrong time (he was OK).
I'm not saying the US government is made up by a bunch of saints or that they're always looking out for the interests of its citizens. What I am saying is, in this case at least (and no doubt many others like it), I am glad this guy was in jail from the beginning. He's an admitted conspirator against the United States and its citizens.
As I said in an above post - probably. The plea bargain still smells a little fishy to me. I dunno, I hope I'm wrong on this.
That means the guy that thinks it is right to go to a war zone (where, BTW, attacking and defending merge into one, so your spinny use of "to defend" and "to provide mercenary military aid" was kinda annoying), by definition of the religious authorities from whence he gets his definition of "what is right", also thinks it is right to plant "a bomb in your home town/state/country (where it may kill your own family members)".
Not all people blindly agree with all of the dictates of their faith: see Catholics and birth control, most world religions in general and religious tolerance, etc.
I don't propose we sink to that level, but we certainly would be stupid and naieve to ignore the fact that there are no "honorable" jihadists out there. If they're looking to help Taliban, and we can get a hold of them, we should decide what to do with them under the assumption that they may do 911-ish things given the chance.
Taliban != al Qaeda. The Taliban was the government of a country that was invaded. Invaded justly, as far as we can tell, but invaded nonetheless. To accuse him of being a terrorist & a traitor, rather than just the apparently substantiated claim of him being a traitor, is a bit of a stretch.
I still have a bad feeling about this... I'm sorry, but it reeks a little of The Crucible. Sure, he could have easily done what he was accused of, but to quote Reagan: "Trust, then verify."
Or maybe you're just lucky? It's a well-documented fact that Arab (and Arab-looking) people were openly mocked, derided, and attacked in some areas.
And, to be perfectly honest, did you ever consider that it was maybe the fact that you shaved that made the difference? In my personal experience, people tend to respond more negatively to bearded individuals (why I keep fairly clean-shaven).
Some reading material: Hate crimes after Sept. 11. Fortunately, the reported number went down after a bit, but this clearly shows that there was an rash of attacks after the WTC and Pentagon were attacked.
This is a false argument - a "hate crime" (God, I hate that term, since it's really not accurate) is essentially a minature form of terrorism.
Let's use what happened after September 11th. People were going out and beating up Arabs (or even people that looked like Arabs), simply because they were the wrong ethnicity. The effect was a fear of going out in public, because you never knew when a person felt like venting.
The crime is punished more harshly, not because of your motivation, but rather, because of the additional effect of your crime.
You and I are both talking about a man named Joe. I say that Joe is married and has a kid. You swear up and down that Joe is still a swinging bachelor. Are we talking about the same man?
Arguably, yes. One or the other (or possibly both) of us could be mistaken on the details of his life, but that doesn't mean that since our stories don't match, we aren't discussing the same man.
A quote from ReligiousTolerance.org (an excellent site for information about just about every religion) -
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three closely related religions. Because they all revere Abraham and certain other patriarchs mentioned in the Bible as their spiritual ancestors, they are called Abramic religions. (The Baha'i world faith is sometimes also included in this grouping.)
Actually, it is the truth. Google search on Jury Nullification
OK, this is one reply to address many of the threads that have cropped up, since it's basically become a pile-on.
I don't think I ever stated what my beliefs are, with the exception that I don't like James Randi. I explained this because I feel that he is arrogant, an opinion come by reading some of his commentaries. I explained that I was not attacking the method of his experiments, but rather his methods in said commentaries, and the nature of his $1,000,000 prize.
It is this sort of groupthink that prevents any serious research from getting done. Rather than let impartial scientists study the 'paranormal', the subject is attacked with an unparalleled viciousness. The only people that therefore do the studies are generally zealots that are preconvinced that the 'paranormal' exists.
None of you really know me. You don't know who I am, what I believe, what I think is a crock of shit, or who I chose to trust. Several have claimed that I am resorting to ad hominem attacks, and I ask, "Where?" Instead, I have been called a moron who believes in invisible snorks, trusts everything he reads, and just an imbecile who doesn't understand the scientific process.
I wish this were a Troll, because then I'd feel proud about the sheer volume of replies I'd gotten.
The few posts that even *read* the last paragraph of my post were generally decent, though we continue to disagree. I wasn't trying to proselytize and change anyone's religion, merely state my opinion.
I now understand what all the trolls are bitching about when it comes to going against Slashdot group-think. I'm so very sorry for offending your sensibilities by having an opposing opinion.
Finally, we can get to the root of my dislike of the man.
Randi doesn't look at purely metaphysical claims (and nor could he).
No, he doesn't examine them. He does not, however, have any qualms about out-and-out insulting those who make purely metaphysical claims.
And perhaps I misused the word random - I meant that the persons involved have absolutely no control over them, and there is no seeming pattern to their occurance. Perhaps psuedo-random would be a better term, since the events themselves probably have some root cause, much like rand() has a seed and a formula, but without knowing that root cause, we don't have an understanding of the phenomena.
Right, but I also said that the initial claim should be treated untrue unless I can get proof.
I have absolutely no reason to believe you. My not absolutely disbelieving you does not mean I believe you (wow, a triple-negative sentence that parses correctly). To pull the meaning out a little bit: The fact that I do not actively disbelieve you does not mean that I do, in reality, believe you.
I land on the "probably doesn't exist" on the idea of a giant invisible space hamster that wants me to send it $100, though, since I have met no one who sincerely believes in such a creature. The circumstantial, non-scientific, evidence comes down against you, I'm afraid. Sorry, no $100 for you.
Since I can't prove that your fictional self doesn't exist, I call bullshit on the grounds that you're making shit up to make me look dumb, and with that in mind, it's unlikely your claims are true. Admittedly, it's not scientific criteria, but it's enough evidence for me.
So what you're saying is that you still don't understand. How many times does it have to be explained to you? The contest does not set "out to prove the nonexistence of 'paranormal' phenomena." It sets out to prove the existence of paranormal phenomena, which is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
Perhaps I don't understand. A contest, set up by a man who has no qualms about insulting those who do not actively disbelieve in the 'paranormal', sets up a challenge where, if an experiment results in conclusive evidence of something 'paranormal', he will pay the claimant a large sum of money, is somehow "setting out to prove" the existence or paranormal phenomena. "Setting out to prove" the existence of 'paranormal' would be going out and conducting research on the issue.
No, my (admittedly unscientific, since there is no way of proving it) belief is that Randi uses the million to lure people in, when you, I, and everyone else knows that a lot of people are kooks who will fail, to give people the impression that anything 'paranormal' is no more true than anything that is demonstrated for his prize. Before you even think it, I don't think this is some "conspiracy" to hide the existance of 'paranormal' phenomena, I simply think that it is a crappy way of going about things.
Your idea of a non-baseless claim is a a collection of rantings made on a website with no supporting evidence?
Pardon me, but I linked to a claim Randi made and evidence to the contrary of that claim by Schwartz, and a counterclaim. It might have been in a different reply.
So by your standards, the claim that you are a pedophiliac kitten-raping cocksucker is just part of a battle of heresay and the claims can't be resolved?
Actually, yes, it is. I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm not, nor can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am, seeing as I am not.
You think it's the reader's duty to prove that the claims aren't true? You don't think it's the claiments duty to prove the claims true? Open that dictionary of yours to the word credulous.
Of course, now I know why you have stupid beliefs. You think you have to believe everything you read unless you can prove what you read is not true. Good luck proving the negative.
No, I don't think that it's the reader's duty to prove the claims aren't true. I merely state that, since neither side provides much support for their claims (let's not forget, Randi called into question all of Schwartz's research on the basis of a frame of a video - they're both making claims), that I can't *prove* that either side is right.
No, I do not think I have to believe everything I read is true unless I can find contradictory evidence. Rather, I do not dismiss claims about the 'paranormal' out of hand. I didn't think that made me a zealot with stupid beliefs.
It bothers me how quickly just about everyone has jumped to conclusions. I've had only a few responses that didn't immediately assume that I was some crackpot that was just mad because Randi had disproven my latest stupid belief. My only point was that Randi has a bias - a bias he freely admits. I didn't claim he was a fraud, or that he doctored trials. I really didn't realize that I wasn't allowed to say any of this, or that Randi was so worshipped within the Slashdot community.
Athiests are on the sturdiest ground. They say there's no verifiable evidence for the existance of god. Without such evidence, they take the reasonable action of not believing in a god.
See, this is where we disagree. While there is no verifiable scientific evidence of any sort of divinity, there is naturally no verifiable scientific evidence of a lack of any sort of divinity.
To reduce this to the ever popular "invisible pink unicorn" debate, I can't prove there are invisible pink unicorns. I also can't prove there aren't. Therefore, it is most reasonable to be unsure of their existance. I feel it'd be silly to actively disbelieve something exists solely because there is no evidence it exists, for the same reason I feel it'd be silly to actively believe something exists solely because there is no evidence it doesn't exist.
You think it's unreasonable to dismiss a view like this, but really it's the only thing to do. What if I tell you that the world doesn't actually exist anywhere you're not looking or sensing? Do you take my word for it? What if I offer poorly documented third-party claims, and first-person claims from people who "just know" it's true, but are unwilling to try to prove it?
I don't believe you. However, if whatever revelation happened to those people suddenly happened to me, I'd believe it too. I wouldn't expect you to believe it unless you'd seen or felt the same things I had seen or felt. Personally, faith is a bit of a misnomer for me - I know what I've felt. Sure, I'd be willing to prove it to you, but I'm not entirely sure it's possible.
The only reasonable action to take is to act as if a claim like this isn't true unless you can get proof.
I agree. However, Atheists make a counterclaim - "There is no form of divinity whatsoever." This claim should be treated as untrue unless you can get proof.
Some claim that they merely disbelieve in God, and are not claiming that God does not exist. I'm not entirely sure how you can "not believe" in something without recognizing a possibility that it exists. This link has an interesting view about it. Don't worry - it's short, and has absolutely nothing to do with 'survival science'.
As for Randi himself, what bothers me is that he merely examines one religion to prove to himself that no divinity exists. While I also rejected Christianity for offending my sense of logic, I went from being an Agnostic to embracing a religion which is accused of being nutty by a lot of people, including Christians. My point is that his arguments against faith are just as flawed as Pascal's arguments for faith, in that they both consider solely Christianity.
I'm a bit dubious of the science of the site, yes. That doesn't make some of the arguments any less sound.
Randi has only one requirement; that anyone who claims to have paranormal powers should be able to demonstrate them. That's all he asks, and he's put up a million dollars for anyone who cain demonstrate paranormal powers.
- wrong pseudo-scientist, and make the whole thing one big adjective, that should remove your objection. I did not type it that way since it looks like crap.
You said that Randi says "I'm right, even though I have no evidence. Prove me wrong", and you even put quotes around it, even though he NEVER SAID THAT.
I never said he did. I generally put quotes in italics.
I said:
James Randi crosses the line from healthy skepticism to a "I'm right, even though I have no evidence. Prove me wrong" psuedo-scientist.
If I say he's a I'm-right-even-though-I-have-no-evidence-Prove-me
Randi does just the opposite. He has never set out to disprove anyone, all he has asked is for people to prove themselves. And no-one can. He has been looking for proof for, what, 40 years, tested thousands of claiments, and every single one of them turned out to be making flase claims.
You accuse him of abandoning the scientific method, which is a lie. That's right, I called you a liar.
That's nice that you called me a liar - it really doesn't make it true. I feel that he's abandoned the scientific method since he is a passionate skeptic - he holds the view that anything viewed by our society as 'paranormal' is superstition, and the test, in my mind, is merely an elaborate method of trying to prove the negative (I'm going to use quotes here - these are *my* words) "No paranormal phenomena exist".
I love how everyone has jumped on me, like I'm some zealot. My post was not that offensive. Perhaps I should have added "I feel that..." to the beginning of my post to make it clear that it was opinion, but I felt that was intuitively obvious.
He uses the scientific method. Get that through your thick skull. Claiming otherwise is a LIE. He does double-blind experiments, agreed-to by both parties, run by an independent group who is also agreed to by both parties.
You are attempting to disparage him, most likely, because he has showed that one of your pet beliefs is full of hot air. Or you're one of those people who likes to steal money from gullible people in need. You're misguided or you're scum. And your beliefs are defenseless, so you attack the man. An ad hominiem, as your kind always turn to.
Now who's using ad hominiem attacks? I never claimed the man was a liar, or didn't honestly believe what he said. I merely think that he does the same thing he criticizes others for in going into experiments with strongly held beliefs, rather than agnosticism about the phenomena.
I'm not a scam artist, nor do I recall which 'paranormal' theories he has tested. I do know that from reading his commentary, he comes across as arrogant and 100% sure of his beliefs.
If a scientist placed a large bet on the outcome of an experiment, would you have faith in his credibility? I know I wouldn't. I also know that I don't place bets on things that I am agnostic about. I doubt that Randi walks up to a horse track and puts $1,000,000 on a random horse. No, I have a "pet belief" (your words) that he has no expectation of that money ever being given away.
Now let's think about the type of people that apply for $1,000,000 prizes. Do you think that he's really getting the intellectually honest people who are doing the research for the truth, rather than expected results?
You don't know my beliefs, except that I don't care for Randi's methods. I don't know how to explain why I don't care for them without "attacking the man." Perhaps you'd like to inform me?
I'm starting to understand why people don't argue with Anonymous Cowards. I'm willing to admit what I believe, without fear of reprisal from people as capricious as yourself.
I am aware of those facts, and as I have explained in *numerous* posts, I don't doubt that the individual trials follow the scientific method. My point was that the whole set-up of the contest, in my mind, does not follow the scientific method, since it sets out to prove the nonexistence of 'paranormal' phenomena.
For your information, I recieved an A on that paper. Not that you would know what that meant, because you don't know what the thesis of the paper was, whether I supported it with evidence, or even what class the paper was for.
Nice use of the word alleged. I hope you know what it means. It means that people who have been debunked by Randi make baseless accusations against him. People like you.
Yes, I do know what it means. You don't seem to, so I'll post the definition:
Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.
It does not mean that said claims are false. It means that I can't prove those claims as true. I'm intellectually honest enough to admit it. The main reason they are "alleged" is not because they are baseless, but rather because it ultimately boils down to a battle of hearsay, and there really is no way to resolve that, since neither side has presented evidence to do so.
A simple example of implied accusation of fraud:
From http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html -
Were I a participant in the Schwartz operation, the kind of information that I would look for, may already be available, either through others who participated in the work, or from video records that seem to come to hand by mysterious means. Please note the video frame shown here. It was made from one of Schwartz's "scientific experiments" with John Edward. The "medium" has just taken his seat in the lab, adjacent to another chair to his left where the subject is located. This is what Schwartz considers to be "isolation" of the two persons. Lo! Do we perhaps see Edwards here taking a quick test peek through an opening in the partition? Say not so! This is science, tight controls and all that, and Schwartz himself told Edward, "There will be no eye contact, so a screen will separate you." I'll bet that Edward chuckled when he saw the set-up!
Now, I make no claim that Edward actually peeked through the opening during the "reading." If we had the original material, we could not only make that observation, but many others, as well. But we'll never see that. What I'm pointing out here is that the opportunity to peek was certainly there, and it should not have been, had Schwartz known how to -- or cared to -- implement proper security. It's not too hard to do, Dr. Schwartz, even for a Ph.D.
Here's the original video. According to the author, said hole was also patched up later, but no one has evidence of that, either way.
In the real world, the boy who cries wolf is quickly ignored. If you make claim after unjustifiable claim of alien abduction and anal probing, you're likely not going to be taken seriously when you claim that your detractors are kooks.
The problem is that legitimate researchers are lumped in with people you just dismissively referenced. If a scientist looks into psychokinesis, medians, or anything else referred to as 'paranormal' with anything other than a cynical mindset, he/she seems to be dismissed as a kook automatically.
I may have misspoke, since you misunderstood me. I recall reading complaints about the nature of the tests, hence why some individuals have refused to take them.
He simply starts out saying they should be able to pass a test that can show they can do what they claim to do.
This is something I can disagree with on its face. Not everything that exists is provable, not to mention that some claimed phenomena are, at their very nature, random.
Not everyone is interested in taking his test, yet my understanding is that he uses the lack of anyone succeeding in the test to 'prove' that there is no substance to any 'paranormal' claims.
I do appreciate your being reasonable, though. Being ripped apart for merely stating an opinion was not how I expected this thread to unwind.
As I said above, I'm not speaking of specific methods used to test claims, since I am no longer familiar with his methods. I am instead speaking of the way he goes about his work.
Does it matter if an astrologist follows the scientific method in testing claims, if he/she still assumes that his/her beliefs are true? As my recollection goes, a psuedo-scientist can still "follow the scientific method" in terms of experimental design, but if he/she has made a decision about the 'truth' before the research is done, that makes him/her a psuedo-scientist. Your definition may vary.
Unfortunately, I did a lot of this research fall semester last year, and rebuilt my computer since then, losing all of my bookmarks. I've got the papers I wrote, but I haven't found the information of Randi yet, since I don't know if I used it.
In this particular case, he was going to be allowed to test the claims, but forced to sign some sort of non-disclosure agreement about the results of the test. Well, Randi called bullsh*t, and if you think that is unreasonable, it is your right.
The author mentions this, and explains:
VERITAS - When we learned how Randi operated, we decided that he could not be trusted to present the facts and the truth (see example below). Hence, we told him that we are happy for his consultation, but not his journalism, PRO OR CON the research. Randi does not like it when people question his questionable ethics. We have no need or interest in Randi's praise or propaganda; however, we do respect his suggestions on experimental design.
Examples of his alleged misrepresentations of other events follows. Granted, it comes down to he-said|he-said, and we've simply chosen different people to believe.
You neglected to mention, that quote was followed by:
However, this does NOT mean that I believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. Once again, skeptics make the mistake of confusing theory and predictions with personal belief.
This whole article is quickly becoming a karma-sinkhole, by the way. I got modded down Troll for pointing out a troll, and my above information, relevant to the conversation, was modded Flamebait. Maybe we can all have a discussion without trying to mod each other into oblivion, k?