Also, mods and various indie games. Lugaru is not a gamble, and as far as I know, is not available on any console. Ditto for World of Goo, Knytt Stories, etc.
Accepted, and the main reason that I still play more on my Mac than on my Wii.
I don't care if Android stores have similar review processes -- I don't care if they even restrict languages. The point is, I'm not locked into any one Android store (unless I go with AT&T).
Good point. Yes, having more than one store is certainly a good thing and would also provide a variety of options.
You seem to have lost track of the point here: the idea wasn't to convince me you were right. The idea was that you would attempt to prove yourself wrong (and if you failed, then you were right). Remember?
As a matter of fact, the point was that "science should be taken with a grain of salt, because it seems to correct itself every now and then". And my point was that this is exactly why science is trustworthy, because it constantly tries to improve itself.
You're simply not following the scientific methodology you originally claimed was good.
Not on/., true. I don't consider/. a peer-review journal, I consider it an exchange of ideas and opinions.
On the fourth hand, the actual civilizations we have to study were religious. In short, it's complicated, and simply claiming one side or the other as fact is wrong.
The 4th is actually the main point. We don't have any non-religious societies as a control group. Since we don't, there is no way to test the hypothesis. For example, it could be that (like the example for Europe you mention) once Islam has converted or killed everyone else (I'm not trying to be aggressive, this is actually the official agenda of Islam) then humanity would be peaceful. Given that the Iran/Iraq wars showed that they're just as happy killing each other over minor differences within the same religion, I do doubt it.
Religion certainly is a reason both for war and for peace. It's been used in both directions. During historic times, that was probably not too much of a problem, since people had enough other reasons to kill or love each other, so it levelled out. With the progress in civilisation, however, we find more and more reasons to cooperate, and less and less reasons to kill each other. I think it is obvious from history. Just take the crimes that carry the death penalty and look through history. In very old times (religious and tribal rule), you could be killed for working on the wrong day, eating the wrong food, looking at the wrong woman - for things that we don't even consider crimes at all today. As we became more civilized, the list of death-penalty-crimes grows ever shorter. First it shrinks to actual crimes (e.g. crimes against people, instead of crimes against ideas). Then it shrinks to violent crimes. Right now, in most parts of the civilized world, the list is either empty or contains murder and high treason during war.
Religion has been tamed by civilization, and forced to adapt. Often against its will. Just look at how the catholic church handled the recent child abuse cases - not exactly the response of someone eager to fix something they accept as a brutal, revealing mistake in the system, was it? But outside pressure forced them in, just like outside pressure forced the Mormons to accept the basics of the US consitution (Utah wouldn't have been allowed to join otherwise) and tempered many more excesses.
However, religion still has a massive influence even in the most segregated countries. Which means we still don't have a control group, and all we can do is speculate. Which means we can not be truly scientific, because there is no way to test our hypothesis. Which means we are back at opinions, and we can try to find supporting evidence for those, and that's what we have.
The only way I'd consider iOS for anything serious is if they remove the approval barrier entirely,
Funny, everything I know that simply works and is joyful to use, has a company with an approval barrier behind it (Nintendo or any gaming console is another example).
Everything that is a gamble and sometimes works and sometimes doesn't - does not. PC gaming or the Android store are good examples. Current rumours say that about a quarter of all apps in the Android store(s) are malware.
Agreed, as I said many times in this discussion, the guy is an asshole, plain and simple.
Nevertheless, his actions show not only that he is an asshole, but also that the other side has a very serious anger management problem. If I provoke someone into attacking me, I am certainly not innocent - but any court would lock him up for hitting me regardless of what I said, because we as a society agreed long ago that physical violence is not a proper reaction to words, no matter what.
Islam hasn't progressed that far. It's stuck in the 7th century, in a time where physical violence was an acceptable reaction to a great many things.
Likewise, if I held an anti-American rally and burned the American flag as part of the protest, that would be considered offensive by millions of patriotic Americans.
Which is why they do exactly that every now and then in the... ugh... islamic countries of the world. Pot, meet kettle.;-)
Just saying, I'm glad that you are not easily offended, but not everyone can brush off such an explicit affront to their religion, heritage, and way of life.
I know, and I accept that. What I can't accept is how we support and defend those people, instead of offering them treatment for their condition. If it were anything except religion, we would certainly consider them insane, no? What do you think would be the fate of someone who went on prime time TV saying he wants to kill someone because that someone burned, say, the latest Harry Potter book? Even if he did it intentionally to insult him? We'd understand that he could be a bit angry, but the moment he threatens death, we would all agree he has some serious issues, wouldn't we?
Its a matter of disrespect. By burning copies of the Koran, which 1.3 billion people hold as sacred,
Yes, but so what? You eat steak? Cows are considered sacred in India, and they have more than a billion people there as well. The difference is that they've accepted that not everyone in the world must abide by their rules. Or when's the last time India called for death to the great satan america because they serve steaks there?
he is just going out of his way to create hatred for the USA and the West in general.
As I said multiple times: I consider this asshole to be pretty much the same kind of religious nutjob that he's provoking on the other side. I don't support his actions. But I strongly support that he not be hindered at being an asshole only because someone feels offended. If offending someone would be illegal, we'd have no more satire, political commentary or pretty much anything. I'm sure someone is offended at the colours of my clothes or the way I have my hair.
how would most Americans feel if someone was organizing a protest that involved a group's members shitting on a copy of the US Constitution in public?
Wrong question. Right question: How many would ask for his death ?
I am not saying we should cater to the sensibilities of religious fanatics who like to murder people in the name of their beliefs. Fuck 'em. However, engaging in an activity that ALSO offense the other 1.399999999 Billion Muslims who are not religious fanatics who like to murder people in the name of their beliefs, is completely beyond the pall of sensibility.
On the contrary. I think people are not being offended enough. Our believes are not being challenged enough. We are not being ridiculed enough. Yes, I know it hurts. I know I don't like it when it's being done to me. But I also realize that what hurts most is when it's true, and when there really is something about you that you should change.
The reality is that they're burning these books precisely because they know it will result in people being offended, and it has nothing at all to do with the book itself, but rather the symbol
I agree 100%. Yes, it is an intentional result and yes, it is because of the symbolism. But symbols are not reality. The map is not the territory. You can eat the menu, but it doesn't taste even remotely like that stuff that's on it.
We regularily lock people up and give them treatment if they can't discern between reality and abstractions anymore.
When you choose to do something solely because of the reaction you're going to get, your defense can't be "aw shucks guys, I didn't know you'd take it so hard."
Again, I agree completely. When you provoke people, don't act all surprised when it works.
However, I as an outsider can laugh about both sides and say that they are both taking themselves entirely too serious, have lost touch with reality, and quite frankly if they have nothing more important in their lives to worry about, then their lives must be unbelievably boring.
We as a society can say whatever we want, but being upset when somebody is deliberately attacking your deeply-held beliefs is distinctly human. We can say that it's their problem if they get butthurt about it, but all we're doing is rejecting our own humanity and tilting at windmills.
Yes, but - I was aiming at a slightly different target. I accept that they have these emotions, that their hurt feelings are real. However I do not accept that this should impact my or anyone elses actions. Case in point: A lunatic gets a panic attack every time someone says the word "you" in his vicinity. Should we outlaw the word "you"? Or should we have him checked and see what treatment might work or what else we can do on his side to make the problem go away?
That is my argument. The problem here is with the people who feel offended. Sure, it is cruel to go about saying "you, you, yooouuu" next to the lunatic. You should probably not do it, it's not kind. But the problem is not yours, it is his. As a political statement of a different kind, I would strongly agree with the Koran burning. If the intention were to point out that these people are lunatics, if it is necessary to go "you, you, yoouuu" because everyone else seems to believe the lunatic is perfectly normal, then I think that is exactly what should be done.
Just to provoke him is cruel and unnecessary. But that is due to the intention, not the act itself.
Interesting. The religious killings you speak against are, of course, an expression of bigotry.
Really? Is it?
To follow the argument of Hitchens that it is only thanks to the taming of religion by modern society that we do not have crusades, witch burnings, inquisitions and other large-scale religious killings, not to mention all the variations of small-scale killings (death penalty for "crimes" against the faith).
In the west. Always remember that. For the majority of humanity today, religious killings are pretty much a perfectly normal thing still.
And I've yet to find one scientific advance that's not been used in warfare...but that doesn't mean that the point of science is war.
Good response. However, the same is true for religion. And for practically everything else mankind has ever come up with, we always find a way to use everything we know in war. So the question should be valid if this really tells us something about the nature of science, or only about the nature of war.
No, to test your theory you should look to see if the introduction of religion into an area increases or decreases the amount of conflict in that area. Your theory is that it increases it, but you don't seem to have checked this at all. Not very scientific of you.
As a matter of fact, I have done some checking on this, albeight of a different kind. I can not remember the source right now, however, so feel free to doubt me all you want. Some analysis does quickly reveal, however, that a surprisingly large number of wars - past and present - have a strong correlation with religion. Very often the line of conflict is drawn between people of different religions, no other attribute (not even nationality) is as consistently present. Now this may be a coincidence - as in the recent US wars where largely christian americans attacked mostly islamic Afghanistan and Iraq - but the correlation is too strong to be only an accident.
When you go back in history, it becomes more than just a correlation.
Of cause, as with all correlations, you have to ask which way the causality runs. Do people fight each other because they have different religions? Or do they have different religions because they fight each other? That is the part where indeed I have no scientific evidence whatsoever and simply assume that the second option, given what general impression I have about how societies and history work, strikes me as highly unlikely.
Finding actual numbers doesn't reduce the credibility of a claim, it strengthens it. That's the part non-scientific people don't understand.
It's like you dimly remembering that I owe you money, and you think it's $10. Then you find the note and it turns out it's only $5. That does not mean if you find another note there is suddenly no debt anymore.;-)
Scientists get all worked up like religious people do trying to defend their system.
True. Science is also a worldview. As such, there is no claim to "truth". But you can measure the success of world views. As I personally see it, practically everything anyone of us in the western world today is using during his day was created thanks to the progress of science. Even the fact that we have enough food to feed us all is thanks to agricultural progress.
I don't see any religion that can offer up even a single percentage point on, for example, the "easing suffering" scale. We have examples of infections or plagues and can directly compare the effects of religious prayers and scientific medicine.
People who believe in science do all kinds of bad things like wanting more state control over everyone's lives, increasing taxes, funneling money to their causes... all in the name of science.
Really? Where? Last I checked, your "in the name of science" actually translates to "we estimate great suffering for all of mankind, unless something happens to stop this and these things". The "in the name of science" part of it all is that the "estimate" was arrived at using the scientific method. Which, like it or not, has been proven time and time again to be the most accurate method of making guesses about the physical world that we humans have found so far.
Like it or not, the second scientists decided to get involved in politics, they subject themselves to the same problems that everything else does.
Which they knew. You apparently missed a decade or two of discussions within the scientific community about whether or not this should become a political thing or remain purely scientific. But at the end of days, scientists are also humans, and many of them care about their neighbours, their children or humanity at large. The decision to get involved in politics was made because otherwise nobody would've listened. Lobbyist voices are much louder than the voice of reason in our halls of power.
and it really is more like a religion than many would care to admit.
Ten years ago, I would have agreed. And yes I know that "science" is taught in theology classes as being a religion. That doesn't make it true. Right now, in my current phase of development, I agree strongly with James Frazer in that we humans have three different methods of dealing with reality - the magical, the religious and the scientific. You really need to read the book to grasp the differentiation in full, I could not possibly sum it up in a few sentences when the shortened version runs to almost a thousand pages (the full version is twelve volumes).
Modern science as a religion is a way of life impacting public policy, how to educate children, what kind of foods we should eat... all very tempting ways to exert control. Once again just like religion.
But that's not true science! I know... and Iran and Saudi Arabia don't practice true Islam either. But that don't matter when you're being stoned for wearing inappropriate clothing or being taxes for driving a car so the government can spend more money.
Wooah, hold your horses. You are throwing a lot of things into one there.
Science isn't impacting public policy, but scientific results and advice certainly do. Why not? When you plan a holiday trip, you also get some numbers on how long the flight will be before you schedule things, don't you? So when politicians plan, say, the energy strategy for the next decade or three, isn't it a smart idea to ask a few of the people that, you know, research those topics for a living about their opinion?
No, that is not "true science", that is applied science. Planes don't fly by pure math, either. They fly because some engineer has taken the scientific knowledge on aerody
So, being so scientifically minded, when was the last time you tried to prove that particular belief wrong?
Not tried too hard, I must agree, due to overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but so far I've yet to find one religion that has not killed for its believes.
Happily waiting for the exception case. Please provide.;-)
Burning the Koran is a deliberate incitement, and is on a different level to the Islamic radicals burning American or western flags or Bibles, because we have a significantly lower attachment to the actual physical object
And I should care why, exactly?
In extreme fear treatment (the kind that gets you a doctor), one of the things that relatives are constantly reminded of is to not change their ways due to the fears of the patient, it only strengthens the fear.
We can be understanding about what ticks someone else off, but by changing what we do in response to it, we are not moderating. On the contrary.
So if you want to make islamists become even more attached to physical objects, more prone to violent reactions, more bound on forcing their will on others, more inclined towards censorship of anything they dislike - then by all means, follow through and abstain from actions that will piss them off.
It is by understanding and taking into account what the patient says but still remaining true to yourself that you can support improvement. So a proper reaction could have been "Ok, we understand you don't want to see people burning a Koran. We'll not broadcast the footage into your countries."
but this guy has just picked the most offensive thing he could do to the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, and is then going ahead and doing it. Irrespective of any arguments from common sense, principled tolerance, or basic good manners.
If he weren't doing it as a part of his own fucked up insane religious agenda, I might even support him. Because yes, he's done what you say. And by doing so has proven just how stupidly easy a vast amount of people can be offended by something that by rights shouldn't be worthy even a three-liner in a local newspaper.
Doh, he burned a book.
Uh, what exactly is news about that at all? He can burn books all day long as I care. Does it matter which ones, except for the fact that glossy paper doesn't burn as good?
...how does a tolerant society deal with intolerance?
By using your brains.
Do we accept the "book on fire == hurt feelings" causality as a necessary and normal one, or do we say that it's your self-made problem and if you want to get rid of it we may help, but otherwise that's entirely your problem?
That is a question we can answer. We can do experiments, make up a theory, all of it. Note that I'm not saying they can't have those feelings - but we as society do not have to consider it proper that they do. For example, a pedophile very likely feels actual sexual desire for a kid. That is a real emotion that society does not condone, tolerate or support. We do support pedophiles who wish for treatment.
Still looking forward to the opening of the first mental institute for the treatment of the religiously insane.
Frankly, they are stupid fucked up religious nutjobs - but that isn't the point.
I wonder, and very seriously so, why we do not consider people who feel personally offended because someone burned a book to be insane. In the real-deal, lock-em-up, psychotherapie-required sense.
Would anyone feel like I need killing if I burn the latest Harry Potter? You see, Hitchens is a demagogue (though he's a good one, and he's right in many points), but would he put a bounty on my head if I burned one of his books? That, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference.
I feel like burning a Koran myself. And a bible. And one of Darwins book, and maybe a math textbook. Just to show that "what the fuck is the big deal?" is the proper attitude, not all this hysteria. It's a freaking book, you morons! You know, printed letters on paper.
Yes, I totally agree that this guy wants to burn a Koran as part of his anti-islamic message. What the islamists don't get is that their reaction is exactly what he's looking for. He wanted to insult them, they gave him what he wanted. He doesn't even have to do it anymore, he's already done his personal "mission accomplished".
Why didn't they simply send him three seperate editions plus a box of matches and told him to go and have fun? According to their own religion, he'll be judged by Allah at the end of days anyways, so what's the problem? If you are really certain that you are right about the world at large, you could be a lot less sensitive about it all. Behind all this fanatism is one thing - heavily guilt-ridden deeply suppressed doubt. The doubt at the core of all religion. You want to believe all this nonsense, but everywhere around you the evidence to the contrary is laughing you in the face. So you must try harder. To ignore it, to re-interpret it in ways that fit the scriptures, and yes you develope a very serious case of psychopathic hatred against anyone who points out the flaws that already hurt you so deeply. If you were conscious about this process, you'd bring yourself to the next doctor and ask for the strongest medicine he can legally give you, as well as a therapy, starting right now. But the process is unconscious.
I think it just means that in reality, science hasn't got all the right answers, all of the time, and science should be treated, as it was always intended, with a grain of salt.
I don't think you understand what science is.
This paper is science. There is not the slightest reason to disbelief in science even the tiniest bit because one prediction has been replaced by a better prediction - because that is exactly what science is all about. Science is a highly successful method of getting ever closer to whatever the "right answer" may be, by falsification, replacement, improvement.
That real revolution in thinking has not yet made it into our ape brains. We enjoy the successes it has given us, from technology to medicine to psychology, diplomacy, social sciences, practically everything around you except sunday church and friday flirting is heavily influenced by science. But few of us have made scientific thinking our home. When was the last time you stopped yourself in a fight with your girlfriend to re-examine the facts and try to actively falsify your hypothesis about her reasons?
Our ape brains want to verify, we feel more secure if we think we are right. Science wants to falsify, to show that the model is wrong, in as much detail as possible, so we can make up a new one that is better. Or in less individual and more social terms: Religion starts by postulating a few facts, and then killing everyone who disagrees. Science starts by postulating a few axioms, and then trying as hard as possible to show that they're wrong. On those that survive, we build more theories, again trying hard to show they're wrong. For geeks: Science is like crypto. An untested cipher is considered weak until enough time has passed and enough people have tried breaking it that everyone else accepts that "we" as a hole don't - at least yet - know a way to do it, so for the moment it's a good cipher.
So to bring it all full circle: This is an improvement of the climate change models, and disproves them in the same way that finding a good attack on RSA breaks cryptography. It doesn't, breaking ciphers is an important part of cryptography.
Natural law means that the strong prey on the weak. Predators feast on whatever they can catch. If you really believe that this is a good way to build a civilisation, then I presume you won't object if someone stronger than you decides that the world would be better off without you in it.
Typical mistake: Thinking only the first step through.
Natural law likewise means that the weak band together to defeat those who are individually stronger. That is true both in prey (who very often form herds) and in predators (packs that can bring down prey that an individual hunter could not).
Society is simply a very complicated herd. Laws are our way of many weaks getting together, being strong enough together to dictate rules that protect themselves, and enforcing them.
Corporate lobbying is the equivalent of the pack.
Or maybe that's all bullshit, probably way too simplified, but some food for thought.
Politicians aren't first and foremost interested in money - if they were, most of them would be in the business world. Their fetish is power. Money comes in because it often signifies power - both having money and being offered money.
The EU parliament, however, is engulfed in a more interesting power struggle, and has been for years. Basically, between the various EU institutions there is a decade-old battle over who gets to rule Europe. The (unelected) commission would love to do it, and the (elected) parliament as well. After many years of getting nowhere and being essentially a pure publicity stunt, the parliaments power has been growing recently, and ever since the "it is not a constitution" EU constitution it has become an actual player.
This is not about money, and I don't think bribery will work. This is about politicians laying claims to parts of the power spectrum. The parliaments primary desire is to show the commission who their daddy is. No amount of money can buy the same satisfaction that being successful here would mean to them.
And, that being said, the elected representatives in the parliament are the good guys, at least as far as politicians can go on the "good" scale.
If you also read the article, you realize that a) those are just two examples they picked and b) women don't look nearly as much at the arms as everyone thought. Check the torso movement, for example, that has apparently a bigger effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, people do buy Viagra pillos on the Internet, so assuming you'll find a few idiots isn't that irrational.
Windows 7 is breaking all backwards compatibility forcing those users to migrate.
...to an iPhone. It's already happening.
Also, mods and various indie games. Lugaru is not a gamble, and as far as I know, is not available on any console. Ditto for World of Goo, Knytt Stories, etc.
Accepted, and the main reason that I still play more on my Mac than on my Wii.
I don't care if Android stores have similar review processes -- I don't care if they even restrict languages. The point is, I'm not locked into any one Android store (unless I go with AT&T).
Good point. Yes, having more than one store is certainly a good thing and would also provide a variety of options.
You seem to have lost track of the point here: the idea wasn't to convince me you were right. The idea was that you would attempt to prove yourself wrong (and if you failed, then you were right). Remember?
As a matter of fact, the point was that "science should be taken with a grain of salt, because it seems to correct itself every now and then". And my point was that this is exactly why science is trustworthy, because it constantly tries to improve itself.
You're simply not following the scientific methodology you originally claimed was good.
Not on /., true. I don't consider /. a peer-review journal, I consider it an exchange of ideas and opinions.
On the fourth hand, the actual civilizations we have to study were religious. In short, it's complicated, and simply claiming one side or the other as fact is wrong.
The 4th is actually the main point. We don't have any non-religious societies as a control group. Since we don't, there is no way to test the hypothesis. For example, it could be that (like the example for Europe you mention) once Islam has converted or killed everyone else (I'm not trying to be aggressive, this is actually the official agenda of Islam) then humanity would be peaceful. Given that the Iran/Iraq wars showed that they're just as happy killing each other over minor differences within the same religion, I do doubt it.
Religion certainly is a reason both for war and for peace. It's been used in both directions. During historic times, that was probably not too much of a problem, since people had enough other reasons to kill or love each other, so it levelled out. With the progress in civilisation, however, we find more and more reasons to cooperate, and less and less reasons to kill each other. I think it is obvious from history. Just take the crimes that carry the death penalty and look through history. In very old times (religious and tribal rule), you could be killed for working on the wrong day, eating the wrong food, looking at the wrong woman - for things that we don't even consider crimes at all today. As we became more civilized, the list of death-penalty-crimes grows ever shorter. First it shrinks to actual crimes (e.g. crimes against people, instead of crimes against ideas). Then it shrinks to violent crimes. Right now, in most parts of the civilized world, the list is either empty or contains murder and high treason during war.
Religion has been tamed by civilization, and forced to adapt. Often against its will. Just look at how the catholic church handled the recent child abuse cases - not exactly the response of someone eager to fix something they accept as a brutal, revealing mistake in the system, was it? But outside pressure forced them in, just like outside pressure forced the Mormons to accept the basics of the US consitution (Utah wouldn't have been allowed to join otherwise) and tempered many more excesses.
However, religion still has a massive influence even in the most segregated countries. Which means we still don't have a control group, and all we can do is speculate. Which means we can not be truly scientific, because there is no way to test our hypothesis. Which means we are back at opinions, and we can try to find supporting evidence for those, and that's what we have.
Yes, they had to make the mistake before learning from it.
Your point?
The only way I'd consider iOS for anything serious is if they remove the approval barrier entirely,
Funny, everything I know that simply works and is joyful to use, has a company with an approval barrier behind it (Nintendo or any gaming console is another example).
Everything that is a gamble and sometimes works and sometimes doesn't - does not. PC gaming or the Android store are good examples. Current rumours say that about a quarter of all apps in the Android store(s) are malware.
Agreed, as I said many times in this discussion, the guy is an asshole, plain and simple.
Nevertheless, his actions show not only that he is an asshole, but also that the other side has a very serious anger management problem. If I provoke someone into attacking me, I am certainly not innocent - but any court would lock him up for hitting me regardless of what I said, because we as a society agreed long ago that physical violence is not a proper reaction to words, no matter what.
Islam hasn't progressed that far. It's stuck in the 7th century, in a time where physical violence was an acceptable reaction to a great many things.
Likewise, if I held an anti-American rally and burned the American flag as part of the protest, that would be considered offensive by millions of patriotic Americans.
Which is why they do exactly that every now and then in the... ugh... islamic countries of the world. Pot, meet kettle. ;-)
Just saying, I'm glad that you are not easily offended, but not everyone can brush off such an explicit affront to their religion, heritage, and way of life.
I know, and I accept that. What I can't accept is how we support and defend those people, instead of offering them treatment for their condition. If it were anything except religion, we would certainly consider them insane, no? What do you think would be the fate of someone who went on prime time TV saying he wants to kill someone because that someone burned, say, the latest Harry Potter book? Even if he did it intentionally to insult him? We'd understand that he could be a bit angry, but the moment he threatens death, we would all agree he has some serious issues, wouldn't we?
Its a matter of disrespect. By burning copies of the Koran, which 1.3 billion people hold as sacred,
Yes, but so what? You eat steak? Cows are considered sacred in India, and they have more than a billion people there as well. The difference is that they've accepted that not everyone in the world must abide by their rules. Or when's the last time India called for death to the great satan america because they serve steaks there?
he is just going out of his way to create hatred for the USA and the West in general.
As I said multiple times: I consider this asshole to be pretty much the same kind of religious nutjob that he's provoking on the other side. I don't support his actions. But I strongly support that he not be hindered at being an asshole only because someone feels offended. If offending someone would be illegal, we'd have no more satire, political commentary or pretty much anything. I'm sure someone is offended at the colours of my clothes or the way I have my hair.
how would most Americans feel if someone was organizing a protest that involved a group's members shitting on a copy of the US Constitution in public?
Wrong question. Right question: How many would ask for his death ?
I am not saying we should cater to the sensibilities of religious fanatics who like to murder people in the name of their beliefs. Fuck 'em. However, engaging in an activity that ALSO offense the other 1.399999999 Billion Muslims who are not religious fanatics who like to murder people in the name of their beliefs, is completely beyond the pall of sensibility.
On the contrary. I think people are not being offended enough. Our believes are not being challenged enough. We are not being ridiculed enough. Yes, I know it hurts. I know I don't like it when it's being done to me. But I also realize that what hurts most is when it's true, and when there really is something about you that you should change.
The reality is that they're burning these books precisely because they know it will result in people being offended, and it has nothing at all to do with the book itself, but rather the symbol
I agree 100%. Yes, it is an intentional result and yes, it is because of the symbolism. But symbols are not reality. The map is not the territory. You can eat the menu, but it doesn't taste even remotely like that stuff that's on it.
We regularily lock people up and give them treatment if they can't discern between reality and abstractions anymore.
When you choose to do something solely because of the reaction you're going to get, your defense can't be "aw shucks guys, I didn't know you'd take it so hard."
Again, I agree completely. When you provoke people, don't act all surprised when it works.
However, I as an outsider can laugh about both sides and say that they are both taking themselves entirely too serious, have lost touch with reality, and quite frankly if they have nothing more important in their lives to worry about, then their lives must be unbelievably boring.
We as a society can say whatever we want, but being upset when somebody is deliberately attacking your deeply-held beliefs is distinctly human. We can say that it's their problem if they get butthurt about it, but all we're doing is rejecting our own humanity and tilting at windmills.
Yes, but - I was aiming at a slightly different target. I accept that they have these emotions, that their hurt feelings are real. However I do not accept that this should impact my or anyone elses actions. Case in point: A lunatic gets a panic attack every time someone says the word "you" in his vicinity. Should we outlaw the word "you"? Or should we have him checked and see what treatment might work or what else we can do on his side to make the problem go away?
That is my argument. The problem here is with the people who feel offended. Sure, it is cruel to go about saying "you, you, yooouuu" next to the lunatic. You should probably not do it, it's not kind. But the problem is not yours, it is his. As a political statement of a different kind, I would strongly agree with the Koran burning. If the intention were to point out that these people are lunatics, if it is necessary to go "you, you, yoouuu" because everyone else seems to believe the lunatic is perfectly normal, then I think that is exactly what should be done.
Just to provoke him is cruel and unnecessary. But that is due to the intention, not the act itself.
Interesting. The religious killings you speak against are, of course, an expression of bigotry.
Really? Is it?
To follow the argument of Hitchens that it is only thanks to the taming of religion by modern society that we do not have crusades, witch burnings, inquisitions and other large-scale religious killings, not to mention all the variations of small-scale killings (death penalty for "crimes" against the faith).
In the west. Always remember that. For the majority of humanity today, religious killings are pretty much a perfectly normal thing still.
And I've yet to find one scientific advance that's not been used in warfare...but that doesn't mean that the point of science is war.
Good response. However, the same is true for religion. And for practically everything else mankind has ever come up with, we always find a way to use everything we know in war. So the question should be valid if this really tells us something about the nature of science, or only about the nature of war.
No, to test your theory you should look to see if the introduction of religion into an area increases or decreases the amount of conflict in that area. Your theory is that it increases it, but you don't seem to have checked this at all. Not very scientific of you.
As a matter of fact, I have done some checking on this, albeight of a different kind. I can not remember the source right now, however, so feel free to doubt me all you want. Some analysis does quickly reveal, however, that a surprisingly large number of wars - past and present - have a strong correlation with religion. Very often the line of conflict is drawn between people of different religions, no other attribute (not even nationality) is as consistently present. Now this may be a coincidence - as in the recent US wars where largely christian americans attacked mostly islamic Afghanistan and Iraq - but the correlation is too strong to be only an accident.
When you go back in history, it becomes more than just a correlation.
Of cause, as with all correlations, you have to ask which way the causality runs. Do people fight each other because they have different religions? Or do they have different religions because they fight each other? That is the part where indeed I have no scientific evidence whatsoever and simply assume that the second option, given what general impression I have about how societies and history work, strikes me as highly unlikely.
Finding actual numbers doesn't reduce the credibility of a claim, it strengthens it. That's the part non-scientific people don't understand.
It's like you dimly remembering that I owe you money, and you think it's $10. Then you find the note and it turns out it's only $5. That does not mean if you find another note there is suddenly no debt anymore. ;-)
Scientists get all worked up like religious people do trying to defend their system.
True. Science is also a worldview. As such, there is no claim to "truth". But you can measure the success of world views. As I personally see it, practically everything anyone of us in the western world today is using during his day was created thanks to the progress of science. Even the fact that we have enough food to feed us all is thanks to agricultural progress.
I don't see any religion that can offer up even a single percentage point on, for example, the "easing suffering" scale. We have examples of infections or plagues and can directly compare the effects of religious prayers and scientific medicine.
People who believe in science do all kinds of bad things like wanting more state control over everyone's lives, increasing taxes, funneling money to their causes... all in the name of science.
Really? Where? Last I checked, your "in the name of science" actually translates to "we estimate great suffering for all of mankind, unless something happens to stop this and these things". The "in the name of science" part of it all is that the "estimate" was arrived at using the scientific method. Which, like it or not, has been proven time and time again to be the most accurate method of making guesses about the physical world that we humans have found so far.
Like it or not, the second scientists decided to get involved in politics, they subject themselves to the same problems that everything else does.
Which they knew. You apparently missed a decade or two of discussions within the scientific community about whether or not this should become a political thing or remain purely scientific. But at the end of days, scientists are also humans, and many of them care about their neighbours, their children or humanity at large. The decision to get involved in politics was made because otherwise nobody would've listened. Lobbyist voices are much louder than the voice of reason in our halls of power.
and it really is more like a religion than many would care to admit.
Ten years ago, I would have agreed. And yes I know that "science" is taught in theology classes as being a religion. That doesn't make it true. Right now, in my current phase of development, I agree strongly with James Frazer in that we humans have three different methods of dealing with reality - the magical, the religious and the scientific. You really need to read the book to grasp the differentiation in full, I could not possibly sum it up in a few sentences when the shortened version runs to almost a thousand pages (the full version is twelve volumes).
Modern science as a religion is a way of life impacting public policy, how to educate children, what kind of foods we should eat... all very tempting ways to exert control.
Once again just like religion.
But that's not true science! I know... and Iran and Saudi Arabia don't practice true Islam either.
But that don't matter when you're being stoned for wearing inappropriate clothing or being taxes for driving a car so the government can spend more money.
Wooah, hold your horses. You are throwing a lot of things into one there.
Science isn't impacting public policy, but scientific results and advice certainly do. Why not? When you plan a holiday trip, you also get some numbers on how long the flight will be before you schedule things, don't you? So when politicians plan, say, the energy strategy for the next decade or three, isn't it a smart idea to ask a few of the people that, you know, research those topics for a living about their opinion?
No, that is not "true science", that is applied science. Planes don't fly by pure math, either. They fly because some engineer has taken the scientific knowledge on aerody
At least they are. We all know companies that'd rather die than admit they were wrong.
So, being so scientifically minded, when was the last time you tried to prove that particular belief wrong?
Not tried too hard, I must agree, due to overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but so far I've yet to find one religion that has not killed for its believes.
Happily waiting for the exception case. Please provide. ;-)
Burning the Koran is a deliberate incitement, and is on a different level to the Islamic radicals burning American or western flags or Bibles, because we have a significantly lower attachment to the actual physical object
And I should care why, exactly?
In extreme fear treatment (the kind that gets you a doctor), one of the things that relatives are constantly reminded of is to not change their ways due to the fears of the patient, it only strengthens the fear.
We can be understanding about what ticks someone else off, but by changing what we do in response to it, we are not moderating. On the contrary.
So if you want to make islamists become even more attached to physical objects, more prone to violent reactions, more bound on forcing their will on others, more inclined towards censorship of anything they dislike - then by all means, follow through and abstain from actions that will piss them off.
It is by understanding and taking into account what the patient says but still remaining true to yourself that you can support improvement. So a proper reaction could have been "Ok, we understand you don't want to see people burning a Koran. We'll not broadcast the footage into your countries."
but this guy has just picked the most offensive thing he could do to the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, and is then going ahead and doing it. Irrespective of any arguments from common sense, principled tolerance, or basic good manners.
If he weren't doing it as a part of his own fucked up insane religious agenda, I might even support him. Because yes, he's done what you say. And by doing so has proven just how stupidly easy a vast amount of people can be offended by something that by rights shouldn't be worthy even a three-liner in a local newspaper.
Doh, he burned a book.
Uh, what exactly is news about that at all? He can burn books all day long as I care. Does it matter which ones, except for the fact that glossy paper doesn't burn as good?
...how does a tolerant society deal with intolerance?
By using your brains.
Do we accept the "book on fire == hurt feelings" causality as a necessary and normal one, or do we say that it's your self-made problem and if you want to get rid of it we may help, but otherwise that's entirely your problem?
That is a question we can answer. We can do experiments, make up a theory, all of it. Note that I'm not saying they can't have those feelings - but we as society do not have to consider it proper that they do. For example, a pedophile very likely feels actual sexual desire for a kid. That is a real emotion that society does not condone, tolerate or support. We do support pedophiles who wish for treatment.
Still looking forward to the opening of the first mental institute for the treatment of the religiously insane.
Frankly, they are stupid fucked up religious nutjobs - but that isn't the point.
I wonder, and very seriously so, why we do not consider people who feel personally offended because someone burned a book to be insane. In the real-deal, lock-em-up, psychotherapie-required sense.
Would anyone feel like I need killing if I burn the latest Harry Potter? You see, Hitchens is a demagogue (though he's a good one, and he's right in many points), but would he put a bounty on my head if I burned one of his books? That, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference.
I feel like burning a Koran myself. And a bible. And one of Darwins book, and maybe a math textbook. Just to show that "what the fuck is the big deal?" is the proper attitude, not all this hysteria. It's a freaking book, you morons! You know, printed letters on paper.
Yes, I totally agree that this guy wants to burn a Koran as part of his anti-islamic message. What the islamists don't get is that their reaction is exactly what he's looking for. He wanted to insult them, they gave him what he wanted. He doesn't even have to do it anymore, he's already done his personal "mission accomplished".
Why didn't they simply send him three seperate editions plus a box of matches and told him to go and have fun? According to their own religion, he'll be judged by Allah at the end of days anyways, so what's the problem? If you are really certain that you are right about the world at large, you could be a lot less sensitive about it all. Behind all this fanatism is one thing - heavily guilt-ridden deeply suppressed doubt. The doubt at the core of all religion. You want to believe all this nonsense, but everywhere around you the evidence to the contrary is laughing you in the face. So you must try harder. To ignore it, to re-interpret it in ways that fit the scriptures, and yes you develope a very serious case of psychopathic hatred against anyone who points out the flaws that already hurt you so deeply. If you were conscious about this process, you'd bring yourself to the next doctor and ask for the strongest medicine he can legally give you, as well as a therapy, starting right now. But the process is unconscious.
I think it just means that in reality, science hasn't got all the right answers, all of the time, and science should be treated, as it was always intended, with a grain of salt.
I don't think you understand what science is.
This paper is science. There is not the slightest reason to disbelief in science even the tiniest bit because one prediction has been replaced by a better prediction - because that is exactly what science is all about. Science is a highly successful method of getting ever closer to whatever the "right answer" may be, by falsification, replacement, improvement.
That real revolution in thinking has not yet made it into our ape brains. We enjoy the successes it has given us, from technology to medicine to psychology, diplomacy, social sciences, practically everything around you except sunday church and friday flirting is heavily influenced by science. But few of us have made scientific thinking our home. When was the last time you stopped yourself in a fight with your girlfriend to re-examine the facts and try to actively falsify your hypothesis about her reasons?
Our ape brains want to verify, we feel more secure if we think we are right. Science wants to falsify, to show that the model is wrong, in as much detail as possible, so we can make up a new one that is better.
Or in less individual and more social terms: Religion starts by postulating a few facts, and then killing everyone who disagrees. Science starts by postulating a few axioms, and then trying as hard as possible to show that they're wrong. On those that survive, we build more theories, again trying hard to show they're wrong.
For geeks: Science is like crypto. An untested cipher is considered weak until enough time has passed and enough people have tried breaking it that everyone else accepts that "we" as a hole don't - at least yet - know a way to do it, so for the moment it's a good cipher.
So to bring it all full circle: This is an improvement of the climate change models, and disproves them in the same way that finding a good attack on RSA breaks cryptography. It doesn't, breaking ciphers is an important part of cryptography.
Natural law means that the strong prey on the weak. Predators feast on whatever they can catch. If you really believe that this is a good way to build a civilisation, then I presume you won't object if someone stronger than you decides that the world would be better off without you in it.
Typical mistake: Thinking only the first step through.
Natural law likewise means that the weak band together to defeat those who are individually stronger. That is true both in prey (who very often form herds) and in predators (packs that can bring down prey that an individual hunter could not).
Society is simply a very complicated herd. Laws are our way of many weaks getting together, being strong enough together to dictate rules that protect themselves, and enforcing them.
Corporate lobbying is the equivalent of the pack.
Or maybe that's all bullshit, probably way too simplified, but some food for thought.
Whatever it is you are smoking, I'd like some. Thank you.
Hey, that's my line! Fork over the good stuff. Actually, I could license the line to you for a moderate share of the bounty...
It's a tiny bit more complicated.
Politicians aren't first and foremost interested in money - if they were, most of them would be in the business world. Their fetish is power. Money comes in because it often signifies power - both having money and being offered money.
The EU parliament, however, is engulfed in a more interesting power struggle, and has been for years. Basically, between the various EU institutions there is a decade-old battle over who gets to rule Europe. The (unelected) commission would love to do it, and the (elected) parliament as well. After many years of getting nowhere and being essentially a pure publicity stunt, the parliaments power has been growing recently, and ever since the "it is not a constitution" EU constitution it has become an actual player.
This is not about money, and I don't think bribery will work. This is about politicians laying claims to parts of the power spectrum. The parliaments primary desire is to show the commission who their daddy is. No amount of money can buy the same satisfaction that being successful here would mean to them.
And, that being said, the elected representatives in the parliament are the good guys, at least as far as politicians can go on the "good" scale.
If you watch the two videos,
If you also read the article, you realize that
a) those are just two examples they picked
and
b) women don't look nearly as much at the arms as everyone thought. Check the torso movement, for example, that has apparently a bigger effect.