The 100 Latest Visitor Comments

1. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313217 by Quine on January 5, 2009 at 11:56 pm

It's so great to be alive during the time when we really begin figuring out the greatest mystery, or rather 'puzzle' of all - mentality and cognition.

Would like to be around to see the next 100 years of it, but that's a long shot.

2. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313216 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 11:54 pm

Cartomancer, you are a breath of fresh air. Here I was getting all strident until somebody brought in a touch of class.

I disagree with the practice of state intervention, but not on intrinsic grounds. I just have the history of too many abuses tied directly to this exact mandate and this exact policy to hope we might get it right one of these days. I just can't stop thinking about Carrie Buck (Buck vs. Bell (1925)).

I should also like to point out that the laws of Weimar Germany clearly anticipated emergency enabling acts such as the one passed by acclaim in the Nazi-dominated Reichstag, and that the loophole which allowed Hitler to take his citizenship was large enough for a cattle car to run through.

The Romanovs also laid a precedent for large-scale persecution in a number of anti-semitic actions throughout their reign.

Cultures carry much baggage, ours is as laden as any, and I'd like to set at least SOME precedent for restraint of power.

And would you make that two (2) feathers? I like to achieve a certain effect.

3. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313215 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 11:47 pm

Carto-

Lots to talk about. Just a one points:

Men are more likely to commit rape than women - do rape laws thus target men unfairly?

The contraception issue isn't about who is more likely to do what, but how we react to what they do. As far as my understanding of current treatments go, we can only practically administer contraceptives in the way discussed to women. Men who treat children badly just can't be dealt with in this way.

I don't think it is ethical to have different actions for the same behaviour depending on gender. I don't think this was the main point that Titania was trying to make, but it is the main problem I now see about this approach.

4. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313214 by Brian English on January 5, 2009 at 11:46 pm

Jg, tell me what is wrong with this statement:

If it's not New Year's day, then it's Christmas day

and how is it different from

If evolution is false, then creation is true?

or

If you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, then God exists?

5. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313213 by Brian English on January 5, 2009 at 11:44 pm

No offense Roger, but even Wooter is not that powerful. You asked for it. ;)

6. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313212 by Brian English on January 5, 2009 at 11:43 pm

Epeeist, I can imagine the result. It's the mud that's less than 4000 years old. Shale isn't mud, Q.E.D. I don't think she realizes that many million years old non-mud (lithified mud) still implies many million years of time necessarily.

7. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313211 by Rodger T on January 5, 2009 at 11:42 pm

isthatclear , is this sites resident cretin, here to make posters like me look witty and erudite.

8. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313210 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 11:41 pm

Comment #313200 by Evilcor

I am not accusing you of homophobia, or racism. What I am pointing out is that you can't go from the reaction of someone (be it a reflex or a revulsion) to what is moral.

You don't get moral values from bodily reflexes and reactions. When subject to infection, the body can get a fever. Does that mean that fever is "right"? Sometimes fever kills.

I also deny that it's impossible to argue constructively over moral absolutes (recent posts notwithstanding). Why would one fall back into irrational dogmatism when faced with a challenge?

You already have fallen back into irrational dogmatism if you put forward the position that moral absolutes exist. You are using imaginary and incoherent entities to justify an argument.

Do you throw chairs at people when you have a fully worked-out rebuttal handy?

How do you build a fully worked-out rebuttal when your foundation (moral absolutes) just don't exist?

9. 10 Lectures on Darwin's Legacy

Comment #313209 by RightWingAtheist on January 5, 2009 at 11:41 pm

In case anyone hasn't guessed, this is one of my "issues". I have a lot of them.

10. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313208 by Cartomancer on January 5, 2009 at 11:40 pm

I seem to have been appointed champion of the pro-control contingent all of a sudden. Which is odd really, given that I have been absent from this thread for most of the day and in the meantime it has escalated from a fast-paced skirmish into a vast epic battle. Still, if I must strap on a general's garb and casually order battalions to their doom then so be it. Just as long as I get a slew of (ridiculously) camp followers and a hat with an unfeasibly large feather in it I'll be fine.

Titania's comments are interesting - a salutary warning note that we must consider the practicalities of implementing any wide-ranging ethical policy. I heartily agree that care must be taken to avoid unintended discrimination against vulnerable minorities, be they female, poor or otherwise disadvantaged.

To this I would say that a distinction should be made, at least in the first instance, between the policy as a matter of principle and the policy as a matter of practicality. If it is ethically sound in principle, but there are practical difficulties in its implementation, that is not the same as saying it is ethically unsound to start with. The result might be the same - it doesn't happen - but were methods found to remove the practical barriers to its implementation then it would and should be implemented if it is, of itself, ethically sound.

Secondly, I would say that the problem of inadequate legal representation for the poor person and the outsider is somewhat endemic to all western democratic societies. It is not something that is best tackled by tailoring each new measure individually to have its own unique checks and balances. Rather, the system as a whole needs effective intrinsic mechanisms to ensure fairness and equality, consistently the same across the board, built into its very fabric. Very difficult to achieve, sure, but very necessary. This is not an argument specific to this case, it is a general principle of jurisprudence, indeed of political philosophy as a whole. To be honest I think there are vested interests among certain members of legal profession itself that run counter to the aim of achieving equality, albeit interests I am at a loss to suggest remedies for. Rich people can hire expensive lawyers to help them get off scot free - unless we prevent the taking of fees for legal representation or impose some universal rate for legal services I cannot see this problem ever going away.

I guess it could be contended that introducing a new measure such as this without first solving the intrinsic problem of disparity in the system is itself reckless and negligent. It might exacerbate the already flawed system to an unacceptable degree. I agree that this is possible in principle. I find it a tremendously sad idea that the effectiveness of flawed legal procedures should be the rate determining step in instituting enlightened moral provisions and improving the lot of society, but if forcing the changes in question through the current system really would twist them into a weapon that unwittingly caused unwarranted harm, the changes would have to be abandoned. There is a calculation to be made. If the benefit in terms of reduced child suffering is significantly greater than the cost from poor execution of the measures, it should still go ahead. Once in place, strenuous efforts should be made to ameliorate the poor execution.

Another point to be made is that, like it or not, this is a social issue with direct links to poverty and deprivation. Not all unfit parents are poor or deprived by any means, but the correlation is undeniable. In the case of drug addicts at least, poverty and unfitness are both caused by their addiction. In the case of those who recklessly have far more children than they can support financially, poverty is directly caused by the unnecessary and reckless multiplication of offspring. In situations where the problem is overwhelmingly one that afflicts a particular section of society, it is not discrimination when the legal remedies overwhelmingly fall on that section of society also. Men are more likely to commit rape than women - do rape laws thus target men unfairly?

Every effort should be made to try to bring the poor out of poverty, provide education and opportunities to all and tackle the underlying causes of inequality. And every effort should be made to train the judges, magistrates and legal decision-makers to assess each case on its merits and not to fall into the trap of assuming that because someone is poor they are therefore an unfit parent - or indeed assuming any characteristic of an individual simply because they belong to a group that displays a higher prevalence of it.

To assume that our judges will, of necessity, be corrupt, bigoted, discriminatory and inadequate is to do our legal systems a tremendous disservice. Indeed, it is pretty much to condemn them as worthless out of hand.

As for those who bring up the spectre of what might happen if the religious fundamentalists or the Nazis get into power again and extend the law to cover other things, I think it is a peculiarly paranoid way of going about lawmaking to avoid passing any measure that someone else might later alter to their own advantage. Were the fundamentalists or the Nazis to get hold of the reins and such measures were not on the books, what would stop them from just coming up with their own nasty discrimination laws anyway? Did the laws of the Weimar Republic do anything to aid Hitler's holocaust? Did the legal system under the Tzars provide the basis for Stalin's purges? Or did these people have to systematically alter or outright ignore the legal systems already in place to do their evil? What barrier are existing laws to people who have the power to scrap them at will, whether by military force or popular mandate? If the fundamentalists seize power, we have already lost - do you really think they are going to respect the integrity of our constitutional democracies, let alone the particular configurations of measures they currently support? At best laws passed in such a cautiously defensive manner will just cause extra paperwork for the bureaucrats that the tyrants put in charge of replacing them.

And we are not even talking about a measure that gives the state wide-ranging powers to enforce contraception on anyone the current government doesn't like the look of - we are setting down very strict guidelines as to particular cases where demonstrable harm has already occurred and is likely to occur again.

11. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313207 by Brian English on January 5, 2009 at 11:40 pm

what is the diffrence between killing a person and abortion?

You didn't ask what was the result of an abortion. You asked what was different between an abortion and a person. You silly fool.

However, killing a person is killing a person. An abortion is a medical procedure. A fetus (1st trimester) is not a person, it cannot think, walk, eat, breath, it cannot live outside the womb. Have you ever seen a 2 month fetus survive outside the womb? Are you seriously telling me it is a person? You are showing your IQ to the world.

12. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313206 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 11:40 pm

What the fuck is up with isthatclear? Is there a medical problem, or is he just given to pointless posts which might be highly insulting if I could figure out what he's talking about? What students? People listen to him?

13. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313205 by epeeist on January 5, 2009 at 11:39 pm

Comment #313114 by jgirolamo:

You talk about things that are beyond myknowledge, I am putting simple, basic, easy to prove facts on the table because they show an entirely different result.

What you are actually saying is that you have no counter to the evidence I put before you.

Again, it was chosen deliberately so that it would be difficult to go to somewhere like "Answers in Genesis" or "Creation on the Web" to find a cut and paste response.

I find it interesting that claim that you don't click on links but all your supposed ripostes (polonium haloes, comets and spiral galaxies) are the standard ones from AiG.

And now you have raised the spectre of Henry Morris, the former hydraulic engineer. I wonder if this might raise the interest of the blue butterfly. In which case my slap-down is going to look distinctly amateurish.

14. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313204 by AllanW on January 5, 2009 at 11:39 pm

JG;

I notice you made no response at all to the simple questions asked of you.

However I'm more than happy to leave it at that as, quite frankly, you describe a serious mental breakdown happening to you so I wouldn't want to add to your burdens.

My best wishes for you and your family's health.

15. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313203 by Yadsmood on January 5, 2009 at 11:39 pm

Anyone opposing state control of reproduction simply isn't thinking clearly, in my opinion. The state currently has the power to confiscate people's children, yet we trust it not to abuse this power. How is forced contraception any more "Leviathanesque"? The current arrangement is if anything more authoritarian, because it effectively empowers the government to distribute children however it pleases.

At present the world is locked in an endless regurgitation of scum. Scumbag parents raise scumbag kids, who grow up to have scumbag kids of their own -- and so on ad infinitum unless we do something about it.

How are we going to terminate the cycle? "Pie in the sky" proposals are unhelpful, as Professor Dawkins correctly points out. Sterilization or forced contraception is an immediate solution, which could be implemented right now if it weren't for stupid political correctness.

Whether you like it or not, state control of reproduction is going to eventually become essential in many countries. It already is in China. Many people speak disparagingly of the one-child policy, but the Chinese don't really have a choice. The only alternative is mass starvation.

16. 10 Lectures on Darwin's Legacy

Comment #313202 by RightWingAtheist on January 5, 2009 at 11:37 pm

Cripes, a friggin 14-minute introduction before I can watch Dennett!

If I was sitting in that room, I don't know if I could resist the urge to scream "shut the hell up and let the speaker get on with it!"

17. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313201 by alovrin on January 5, 2009 at 11:35 pm

JGiro lamo?

How old are you guys, you sound like teenagers!

Oh you flatterer

18. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313200 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 11:34 pm

Wow MPhil, you sure put me in my place. . . wait, no you didn't.

Steve, I said not one single, solitary thing about "gut reaction." The allusion of the burn was intended to bring to mind the concept of a body deciding reflexively that an event is bad (which, you'll remember, I argue to be a value-laden term) and responding appropriately. If there is anything in my thinking which justifies racism in the society we have today, I should like you to point it out. Racism beyond a tribal us/them antagonism is almost entirely a cutural affect - one which is probably traceable in its modern form to the Enlightenment notion of human equality; a backlash, if you will. In fact, racism is EXACTLY the sort of cultural relative which is so often taken for an absolute. . . which is precisely what the hell I am arguing AGAINST.

I would also appreciate it if we could have a single thread in which you don't accuse me of homophobia. I put that little gem in the same basket with racism. Actually, in so far as the essential act of adult homosexuality is to reduce competition for mates, homophobia almost certainly is not consistent with reproductive success among rivals - indeed, rival males (and females) should encourage homosexuality.

I also deny that it's impossible to argue constructively over moral absolutes (recent posts notwithstanding). Why would one fall back into irrational dogmatism when faced with a challenge? Do you throw chairs at people when you have a fully worked-out rebuttal handy? How many scientists burn each other at the stake? It is precisely the absolute nature of our speculations which informs a useful exchange. I wouldn't be interested in an argument over circumcision because it is clearly not universally good or bad. But to see a reasoned conflict between opposing worldviews, each respecting the valid argument form - that would be enlightening.

Of course, the axioms which form a base for our speculations mustn't fall from the sky. Where do we find them? Only in the one supreme value (which I assume tentatively): survival utility.

Far from being rarefied, it is at the very heart of the human enterprise.

Anyway, thank you Steve for expending at least some thought on an answer to me. It's more than some would stoop to attempt.

And as for you, MPhil - Melvyn Bragg wants to know if you'll come on and not debate a Utilitarian.

19. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313199 by epeeist on January 5, 2009 at 11:32 pm

Comment #313123 by Brian English:

Here's the report for the Yarra delta in Melbourne.

And here is one for Green river - www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/varve.ev.pdf

This has the advantage that it is not, to paraphrase GWB, in foreign. It is all American.

20. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313198 by isthatclear on January 5, 2009 at 11:25 pm

One is a human, the other is a medical procedure. There, not too difficult was it?

Are you serious when you answer to my questions, what is the diffrence between killing a person and abortion?

Man! all unborn babies are medical procedures(!) that is incredible evolins; you are showing your IQ to entire world

Mr dawkins do not ban my sudents' questions in your head; you are gonna be delusional more; face them if you can

Rootsquare or whatever

Who are u? Are you joke?

Laurie frasier

you can do better, pal. Just hit your head on the wall and keep saying not enough evidence not enough evidence in the exhibition of The earth.

21. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313197 by isthatclear on January 5, 2009 at 11:14 pm

Mr dawkins you just BANned MY QUESTIONS AGAIN? This is not good and it is very hideous. I am writing and you are deleting as if i did not write it? How do you feel?

22. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313196 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 11:06 pm

Comment #313190 by Evilcor

Natural selection has bequeathed us such a system, as you noticed the last time you burned a finger and pulled back before you could take thought.

Racism has been justified by the "natural" revulsion at the different an unusual. So has homophobia.

So trying to connect gut reactions to ethics is a very bad idea.

What you are trying to justify is a belief in the belief in moral absolutes. That just won't do. Because if you encounter someone with a belief in the belief in different moral absolutes, the only argument you can use is "I'm right, you are wrong".

This isn't about some rarefied discussion of philosophical principles. It is about how we practically get along in society.

23. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313195 by Quine on January 5, 2009 at 11:02 pm

Comment #313193 by Roland_F:

Poor family suffering from an endorphin, doperamine etc. addiction of the mother neglecting the family.

It happens.

24. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313194 by MPhil on January 5, 2009 at 11:00 pm

Styrer,

I'll pass on this one. I'm too busy to deal with a simple naturalistic fallacy - topped with an is-ought fallacy.

That's fit for a first semester student who just read Moore's Principia Ethica for the first time and hadn't discovered the fallaciousness of this kind of view on his own.

I have more important things to do...

...cheerio

25. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313193 by Roland_F on January 5, 2009 at 10:58 pm

Missed this one : Comment #304805 by jgirolamo:

A shocking example of an attack of intense total delusion.
Like Buddhist in a Parikrama throwing themselves on the floor all the way to Lhasa (5km per day) or around Mount Kailas, or pilgrims robbing on their knees to Lords etc…
I’ve seen some Hindu Gurus’ giving up everything and living as a kind of eremites without any possessions on a sparse diet to improve their karma for a better rebirth (higher as cow not lower as dog or rat).

had three children, 5,8and10 so life was conflicted for a time. Every morning I would wake up with such and excitement in my whole being. I couldn't believe what God made me do . . . he would set me up comfortably in the living room and get me a drink and put up with the house being messy.

Poor family suffering from an endorphin, doperamine etc. addiction of the mother neglecting the family.
Michael Onfray wrote in his book (In defense of atheism) about the transformation of Saul of Tarsus to St. Paul, some total breakdown for 3 days, feeling the Christ inside him, hearing voices etc… and Psychologist rated this description as an hysterical breakdown.

26. Assassins of the Mind

Comment #313192 by Layla Nasreddin on January 5, 2009 at 10:55 pm

I love Rushdie's work -- Midnight's Children is one of my favorite books. I especially like the bit at the very beginning where the protagonist's "grandfather" (it's complicated) hits his head on a rock while prostrating in prayer, and from that moment on, "he resolved never again to kiss earth for any god or man." Also, there is a dashing Englishman with a prominent center-parting in his hair who turns out to be integral to the story (with several cruel twists in the end). (I swear to dog that when I saw some younger photographs of Dawkins, I thought of this character.) As if that were not enough, there is also a young (very nominal) convert to Islam whose (Muslim) name is Laylah.

It's a thick, sprawling (and potentially really confusing), involved book, with dozens of characters and locations and heavy on what is sometimes called "magico-realism" ("magical" events being placed into a "realistic" setting and simply accepted as part of the natural order of things). The Satanic Verses has many of the same traits.

Oh, and I quite enjoyed the article, too! What a privilege to know this man and be able to speak with him!

27. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313191 by Quine on January 5, 2009 at 10:51 pm

Brian, don't waste bits on the trinity; a false premise implies any conclusion. I would have suspected that you would be familiar with the famous proof from B. Russell that he and the Pope were one.

28. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313190 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm

Go easy, there, or you'll have MPhil on your case. He's an intellectual Rottweiler.

Like the man said: Bring it on.

I understand shades of grey, and I understand the alleged quintessence of an absolute good.

I also understand that we are finite beings who can be derailed by a toothache, and so I say toothaches are absolutely bad. They can be primitively described as being intrinsically harmful to the victim, therefore they are bad, period.

I reject utterly both the thought-jizz of a pygmy like Aristotle and the liberal whim-wham of intellectual plausible deniability. The former is a limited mind Yo-ho-ho-ing over matters he was scarcely equipped to contemplate, and the latter is pseudo-enlightened holy water. . . good for keeping away those nasty vampires of post-enlightenment continental philosophy, no good for anything else.

There is an unfortunate tradition in the anglophone history of philosophy which consists largely of professor-types wading into thick stacks of Schopenhouer and de Sade and coming back to the lay public (which foots the bills, you understand) to announce that all is well and the Universal Moral Code We All Share is intact, and the particular inventory of Ye Olde Shoppe of Goode and Eville has not been seriously assaulted.

If this is the absolutism you denounce, I agree with you.

Unfortunately, too damn many people who should know better react against Anglo-American Grundyism by going completely over the edge into - not relativism, that would be a useful tool to hone the intellect - but a kind of moral abyss in which any kind of naughty-naughty is to be excused as a cynical exercise in debating skills.

I call it cynical because such characters are usually found with their impressive CVs in one hand and a big pile of bleached wog bones in the other. Englishmen who claim to enjoy the poety of Robert Burns (or worse, Ben Okri!) come to mind as an example.

What I maintain is that there IS an absolute good in some cases, as there might also be an absolute bad. And that the task set before a moralist is to equip us with a set of tools to allow us to make the distinction without having to pause and take thought. Natural selection has bequeathed us such a system, as you noticed the last time you burned a finger and pulled back before you could take thought. I urge us to cultivate a moral awareness which assumes the physical verities, rather than one which denies them or lies about what they are.

And Styrer, I will vomit when I'm downwind of the farts you've got coming out your pie-hole.

29. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313189 by MPhil on January 5, 2009 at 10:44 pm

The problem with the written 'langauge' (or rather set of lexicograms) was both that the grapheme memory and recollection (and perhaps the intention-to-grapheme mapping) was not as sophisticated, which is probably due to less voluminous and synaptically dense Broca's and Wernicke's areal and various other specialized sub-architectures in them compared to us - and the other problem was the lack of syntactic complexity.

Of course you can't try several systems on one individual and see which it can adopt best... so I would say the next logical step would be to devote that sort of attention to teaching bonobos and chimps - i.e. enhancing their neuro-cognitive development, but try different systems of reference and expression with incerasing complexity. That way we can test which complexity of cognition and thus of situated, extended awareness their neural architecture allows them to develop.

From there on, we should be able to begin finding out how the specific differences in neuroanatomy, neurobiology and neurophysiology (focussing on architecture, synaptic density and complexity of weight-distributions) account for the differences in observed cognitive capacity.

Man, the future of neuroscience will be even more exciting than the its first 50 years.

It's so great to be alive during the time when we really begin figuring out the greatest mystery, or rather 'puzzle' of all - mentality and cognition.

30. 10 Lectures on Darwin's Legacy

Comment #313188 by Thor\'Ungal on January 5, 2009 at 10:44 pm

FP,

Awesome, thanks for this. Now on to the watching.

Thor'Ungal

31. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313187 by Corylus on January 5, 2009 at 10:42 pm

Comment #313139 by jgirolamo:

nope, but I did not click on the link so all I know is what you said.

When you come back I hope you will explain why you do not click on links. I don’t understand your position on this and I would like to. I can think of several possible reasons:

1) Perhaps you are worried about practical issues concerning internet use. For example, picking up a virus or being sent to a phishing site. If you have an up-to-date virus checker, do not download anything other than a PDF file, and remember never to give out any passwords online this is nothing to be concerned about.

2) Perhaps you are concerned about being directed to a site that contains material that you would consider offensive (extreme sexual content/violence etc.) It is extremely rare that anyone posts a link to anything that is genuinely off the scale, in fact I have only seen this twice in the two years I have been on here (and interestingly enough one of these links was posted by a Christian). If it is any help I have been happily looking at some of the links people have posted on this thread and have been learning stuff. I haven’t looked at them all, but I really don’t think you need to be concerned on this.

3) You are worried that someone with access to your computer might view the sites that you have been looking at. You just need to delete your ‘history’ if this is the case. When online you should have tabs at the top of the page (one marked history) – go from there. If this does not appear just press just the F1 button at the top left of your keyboard – this opens your computer’s ‘help’ menu and you can get instruction that way.

4) You have been told by someone not to click on links. If this is the case, what reasons did they give and do you think that have any right to tell you what to do?

5) You just don’t want to.

If it is #5 that’s OK.

However, you must understand that this:

a) makes people feel as though all of their evidence is not being viewed by you. Imagine someone only listening to the first two words that you say in any sentence. I’m thinking you would get frustrated after a time.

b) makes them wonder what precisely it is that you are trying so desperately to avoid.

If there is some other reason, please say what it is. I am genuinely interested about what is behind this.

32. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313186 by humanpowered on January 5, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Dasquid,

I wrote a response to your rabid response to my comments, but somehow the thing didn't post. I'm not going to rewrite it. It's not worth the trouble. You'll just have to trust me-I really stuck it to you, and you would have felt really really lame.

The reason I don't need to explain myself for the third time is because I'm confident that you're capable of figuring it out on your own. Let me know if you have hard time-I suppose I can try to help.

Dasquid, you need to address the issue that Layla so eloquently describes in detail. Its the issue of reproductive rights. And more generally, those individual rights that the state cannot legitimately deny its citizens. Let's talk about the lines that can and cannot be crossed.

Because when I read the posts by those who are in favor of required/forced contraception of "unfit" mothers, it seems to me they're simply stating their opinions or complaining about the cost and burden babies of unfit parents have on society. Well, opinion and mere "trouble" aren't going to cut it as the basis for a law which threatens our most sensitive and defining human trait-the power and the choice to have children.

Please, can anyone tackle this subject of individual versus state rights? Or do we not believe there should be any protection for this concept of individual autonomy/freedom?

33. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313185 by joycey28 on January 5, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Absolutely amazing video.

No wonder all those chimps smoke, they have a natural tendency to use cigarette lighters - maybe giving a pack of smokes and a lighter to other species may point to other close ancestors?

34. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313184 by Goldy on January 5, 2009 at 10:36 pm

...and chosen old testament books. I wanted all that God had.

A part of her, it seems, still wants to cherry-pick.
If you want all that God has, what about the Torah adn the Quran? You read them yet, JG?
Or, as I suspect, this cherry-picking is going to be a feature of your faith?

35. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313183 by Dr Doctor on January 5, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Oh thats just great. So if you are poor you can't have kids. What you are proposing is essentially a child tax, irresponsible people are not just found amongst the poor you know - there are just a lot more of them.

If you don't find this convincing, you pay into the system all your life. You have sex and get pregnant. You get "downsized" and start "taking" government money.

What choice at this point? Cease taking government money and are then forced to bring the child up in abject poverty (what greater abuse by society could there be in my view). Or, forced to have an abortion.

What a travesty of convenience for others (especially yourself) your thinking is. You disgust me sir.

36. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313182 by Quine on January 5, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Another important piece comes from the power of prayer. Many, here, think that when someone is alone praying, no one is listening. That is not true; the person's unconscious mind is always listening, and trying to produce whatever is prayed for. Repeated prayer is a form of training that changes the neuro wiring of those who do it (neurons that fire together, wire together). There is plenty of documentation in studies of meditation that show that changes in the brain (and the natural drugs being produced) do not require any supernatural action. Just as when she changed the wiring in her motor cortex for gymnastics, by repeated training, she set herself up for this by asking her unconscious mind for what she wanted:

Comment #304805 by jgirolamo:

But 4 years later,in a Sunday school class, the words of scripture cut right to my heart. LOve the Lord your God with all of your hear, soul and mind, and strength. I thought, I can't love someone much less God that I have never seen!! I knew right then that I could not even deal with a basic command of God. I knew in my heart what that meant and looked like, I knew many who were "on fire Christians" they oozed Jesus. They spoke in tongues ( the thought made me "throw up in my mouth a little"). I was not this Christian and wasn't sure I wanted to be.

I decided to take it to prayer. Every night for 5 years I prayed without failure, in bed before I fell asleep, "Lord please help me to love you more". I knew I could not just work it up and was not about to be fake.
Then it happened, one day while doing housework, I just fell to my knees (first time I ever prayed on my knees)I gave my whole life over to God. I remember thinking that I have never wanted anything more in my life... during that prayer.After that day, my life changed forever. I found myself falling to my knees and praying right in the middle of doing something. I would run to the bathroom (if someone was home) shut myself in and fall to my knees and pray. My praying was always with tears and such overwhelming joy that I can't describe it with words. I couldn't believe what was happening to me. I knew it was Jesus. I prayed constantly nothing got done, I never wanted to get up! I had three children, 5,8and10 so life was conflicted for a time. Every morning I would wake up with such and excitement in my whole being. I couldn't believe what God made me do. I wanted to read all day. The Bible, books on the Holy Spirit etc.. I was not a reader, I never used to read. But in the course of 1 year, I must have read 20 plus books , the new testament 3 times and chosen old testament books. I wanted all that God had. Prayer was my life. It was a time of worhsip[sic].

It is well known: if you ask your brain long enough and hard enough to cut loose with that dopamine, you will get it. And it will be so pure and so true that it can match or beat any street drug you can get your hands on. I am sure she had also had the experience of trying again and again to do some difficult gymnastics routine, and then one day "it just happened."

37. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313181 by Goldy on January 5, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Egad! What's Brian done to me! :-)

JG - I'm speechless....for a sock puppet, you're good!

38. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313180 by DalaiDrivel on January 5, 2009 at 10:31 pm

I'd like to add one thing:

Bonobos aren't human. And that's why they've got everything going for them.

39. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313179 by Roy_H on January 5, 2009 at 10:29 pm

You can teach a Bonobo to make fire. You can't teach a creationist anything.( They know it all )

40. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313178 by adangelo15 on January 5, 2009 at 10:29 pm

Unfortunately I cannot see this video since I am at work right now and our IT team has prevented me from upgrading anything on my computer. So excuse me if I say anything that this video has already pointed out.

I think it should be illegal at the least for adults recieving government monetary help to be able to have kids. We the tax payers end up paying for that and shouldn't. Why should I pay for irresponible people. Going off topic I also thing in order to get government help one should have to take a drug test at the bare minimum. I have heard to many times of people selling food stamps for money to get drugs or using welfare checks on things they want instead of things they need.

Sorry about going off topic but the subject just reminded me of all this.

41. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313177 by DalaiDrivel on January 5, 2009 at 10:28 pm

I found it a bit unpleasant watching this, frankly.

Yes, we are learning about them and their abilities, but don't the researchers realise that by encouraging them to play the piano, use lighters, receive kisses, etc., that they are humanising them?

I don't want to say that the bonobos are learning more about humans than vice versa, but they are certainly learning about us.

A great part of me yearns for them to be left alone, and observed.

The paranoid side of me sees a Pandora's Box of interspecies' friction erupting. Maybe in many years, many generations' time, and its maybe only dark fantasy, but nonetheless...

What if people openly wanted to adopt or humanise them? Who knows- what if nutjobs wanted them to give up their sex lives through humanisation, or see them in circuses? It makes me recoil.

At the very least I want to see that the team has invested thought into the consequences of interaction, and has made confident predictions of the effects on bonobo culture, as they acknowledge said culture exists.

As Sam Harris stated in the Four Horsemen discussion, we can never actually gauge the true future extent of our actions, like presupposing that souls live in petri dishes.

42. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313176 by MPhil on January 5, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Well, that's part of what I've been saying all the time. Now the difference between what the best of these animals can do and what humans can do (including citities, government, poetry, scinece etc) comes from a different synaptic density, increased relative volume of critical functional areas and the resulting more complex neurocogntive architecture.

These findings show that the structure of the stimuli drive the development of neural architecture within the limits given by the genes and other environmental factors.

43. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313175 by Thor\'Ungal on January 5, 2009 at 10:17 pm

Nice.

@Robin Burgess:- Agreed, I think Peter singer put it fairly well when He pointed out that we protect the partial rights of the mentally handicapped up to the point to which the rights apply (e.g. right to vote makes no sense if they cannot comprehend what they're voting for). Some care should be taken to establish the overlap but many of the great apes (and possibly some other species) I think would fall under this umbrella.

@armin.lotze:- While I agree that the comparison is insensitive the comparison was meant between Homo and Pan rather than between races. I don't think she intended to imply that Ancient Tasmanians were different in any fundamental way to any other human, only that they lacked knowledge of some of the things we typically associate with Humans. Would it help if every time you heard the word "human" you think "The third chimpanzee", I find it helps.

Personally I'm not entirely convinced that Bonobos are simply humans with a different culture and more hair but these are the kinds of experiments that could test the edges of these comparisons.

I'm also a bit for the idea of finding species on the cusp of human level abstract thinking/communications/problem solving and putting efforts into pulling those species up the rest of the way. Either by GM or guiding their evolution somewhat (kind of like we've accidentally done to crows). Ethical considerations pending of course, this might be on the edge of being unethical.

Oh and Yay to demonstrating once again that intellect, reason and compassion are evolved characteristics, not "god given".

Thor'Ungal

44. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313174 by Wosret on January 5, 2009 at 10:17 pm

650. Comment #313162 by Steve Zara

Perhaps Titania and Cartomancer and Laurie should have a debate and just "sort it all out", so I will know what to think!

Yes, I think that is what I need too. I hate being so damn indecisive.

45. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313173 by Thor\'Ungal on January 5, 2009 at 10:16 pm

@Robin Burgess:- Agreed, I think Peter singer put it fairly well when He pointed out that we protect the partial rights of the mentally handicapped up to the point to which the rights apply (e.g. right to vote makes no sense if they cannot comprehend what they're voting for). Some care should be taken to establish the overlap but many of the great apes (and possibly some other species) I think would fall under this umbrella.

@armin.lotze:- While I agree that the comparison is insensitive the comparison was meant between Homo and Pan rather than between races. I don't think she intended to imply that Ancient Tasmanians were different in any fundamental way to any other human, only that they lacked knowledge of some of the things we typically associate with Humans. Would it help if every time you heard the word "human" you think "The third chimpanzee", I find it helps.

Personally I'm not entirely convinced that Bonobos are simply humans with a different culture and more hair but these are the kinds of experiments that could test the edges of these comparisons.

I'm also a bit for the idea of finding species on the cusp of human level abstract thinking/communications/problem solving and putting efforts into pulling those species up the rest of the way. Either by GM or guiding their evolution somewhat (kind of like we've accidentally done to crows). Ethical considerations pending of course, this might be on the edge of being unethical.

Oh and Yay to demonstrating once again that intellect, reason and compassion are evolved characteristics, not "god given".

Thor'Ungal

46. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313172 by Thor\'Ungal on January 5, 2009 at 10:15 pm

47. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313171 by Styrer- on January 5, 2009 at 10:15 pm

Comment #313164 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 10:07 pm

You'll probably make a fortune. But vomit every time you try to spend some of it.

I think you're confusing terms here. Something can be absolutely horrible, but we don't say that the sum of all horror has been thereby used up. Absolute morality makes a very different claim, and not only on our language faculties to represent our emotional attitudes. It claims to be a complete and untarnished essence - Platonic, if you will - against which all shades of human good and bad can be measured.

Go easy, there, or you'll have MPhil on your case. He's an intellectual Rottweiler.

Best,
Styrer

48. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313170 by Titania on January 5, 2009 at 10:14 pm

Quine, you are so cool.

Goldy, you are so ..... hot in Brian's avatar.

Mitchell, you are just plain awesome.

Brian, Steve, and 2, your rationality gives me chills.

Night, all.

49. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313169 by Thor\'Ungal on January 5, 2009 at 10:14 pm

50. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313168 by brianjames on January 5, 2009 at 10:13 pm

Too many people nowdays take too many things as God given rights.It would not hurt the situation if some of these supposed rights were taken away. None of the liberals seem to actually be considering the childs situation. They say they do but all of thier arguments contradict the claim.

Problem or no problem, a couple should have to prove thier fitness for parenthood. You have to prove you can safely operate a motor vehicle & go through a provisional period before you are allowed to have an unrestricted licence. But any fool can give birth & raise a child, no questions asked, thats insane.

As above, so much is taken for granted nowdays, people are acting like spoiled children that need to be pulled back into line.They wont like it but in a society where the selfishness of the induvidual is harming the cohesivness of society,
something must be done.

If the induvidual were to have an entirely free reign society would disintegrate. I see many examples every day from inconsiderate parking, rude customers & downright inconsideration for any other being inhabiting the same space.
People literally walk or drive around completely oblivious to the rest of the world around them.

This (Right to have a child) is just the latest exapmle of something taken too much for granted. If children were not being abused & murdered in the shocking numbers they are right now, this wouldnt be an issue, but it unfortunately is.

Yes the societal problems of ineqaulity & poverty are causes that need to be dealt with but this is not going to happen overnight, you have to look at what symptoms can be treated here & now.

The well being of children should be a priority, they are the future. The drug or alcahole addicted parent has failed to make the right decision. The child should not have to suffer from thier inability to help themselves.

51. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313167 by Wosret on January 5, 2009 at 10:12 pm

645. Comment #313156 by Frankus1122

What is the underpinning of your belief that allows you to feel it right to impose your views and values on me?

That is just what social animals do. We impose our views and values on each other.

In order to live together we agree on what we are willing to put up with from others, and what we are willing to give up for others.

I am free to argue for, and attempt to convince people to share my views about how society ought to be, and others are free to do the same.

If not enough people in society accept my views and values then tough shit for me.

This is the negotiation Steve alluded to. Where else do you figure social values and views come from if not the people within the society? Of which I am one.

So in short: who gets to decide these things? ME? Yes, me, and you, and everyone else.

52. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313166 by Thor\'Ungal on January 5, 2009 at 10:12 pm

@Robin Burgess:- Agreed, I think Peter singer put it fairly well when He pointed out that we protect the partial rights of the metally handycapped up to the point to which the rights apply (e.g. right to vote makes no sense if they cannot comrehend what they're voting for). Some care should be taken to establish the overlap but many of the great apes (and possibly some other species) I think would fall under this umbrella.

@armin.lotze:- While I agree that the the comparrison is insensitive the comparrison was meant between Homo and Pan rather than between races. I don't think she intended to imply that Ancient Tazmanians were different in any fundimantal way to any other human, only that they lacked knowledge of some of the things we typically associate with Humans. Would it help if every time you heard the word "human" you think "The third chimpanzee", I find it helps.

Personnally I'm not entirely convinced that Bonobos are simply humans with a different culture and more hair but these are the kinds of experiments that could test the edges of these comparisons.

I'm also a bit for the idea of finding species on the cusp of human level abstract thinking/communications/problem solving and putting efforts into pulling those species up the rest of the way. Either by GM or even guiding their evolution somewhat (kind of like we've accidentally done to crows). Ethical conciderations pending of course, this might be be on the edge of being unethical.

Oh and Yay to demontrating once again that intellect, reason and compassion are evolved characteristics, not "god given".

Thor'Ungal

53. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313165 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 10:09 pm

650. Comment #313162 by Steve Zara

Ah...I see. The statement seemed so obviously right that I thought you meant something else :)

54. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313164 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 10:07 pm

Steve:
All metaphysics must begin in the survival of a replicator. We know of no higher utility function in nature. I cite physical absolutes because they ARE moral absolutes.

If you take death to be generally bad, then in cases where you are not sacrificing to your replicators (genes or memes) you should avoid death. Absolutely. In this case, what is physically good for you becomes the essence of morality.

From your point of view, parasites are invariably wicked. So are threats to your children and disciples.

We have called "moral" that which is just good decision-making. . . and then lost our way regarding what should be included among the virtues.

Mine is a simple philosophy, and I would like to see if there's any money in peddling it.

55. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313163 by Styrer- on January 5, 2009 at 10:06 pm

Comment #313149 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 9:49 pm

What I'm saying is, stop using the argument that we can just expand whatever policy is already in place. Think of forced contraception as a new policy; independent of whatever hully-gully we're currently trying out.

It's wise counsel, certainly, but in this case I don't think that compulsory contraception is being sold as an expansion of the state's powers to take children away from abusive parents but as a separate state power, designed to treat a different ill, which has moral equivalence with the latter. The distinction is crucial, I think.

Best,
Styrer

56. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313162 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Comment #313160 by root2squared

But then you are agreeing with me. We can't just make declarations of rights to do what we like with our own bodies. Sorry if I seem a bit pedantic here.

Anyway, I need to get some sleep. My head is spinning. I have rarely had my mind changed so many times on a single issue so quickly. Perhaps Titania and Cartomancer and Laurie should have a debate and just "sort it all out", so I will know what to think! I would also like to see MPhil come in and suitably scold those who talk about moral absolutes, but that is just me.

57. Apes that write, start fires and play Pac-Man

Comment #313161 by Tumara Baap on January 5, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Fascinating. Thought provoking. Even uplifting.

And surely profoundly upsetting to Dinesh D'Souza. I suppose it's time for round two of a Bonobos-really-do-suck conservative rant in the WSJ.

58. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313160 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 10:02 pm

643. Comment #313154 by Steve Zara

Agreed. But this is a pretty general statement.

I was trying to understand it through the context of prostitution which was one of the things evilcor mentioned. So I pointed out how you could regulate it to ensure it did not have a bad effect in others.

59. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313159 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 10:00 pm

Thanks, Laurie.
Of course, I am in general agreement with current policy; I just want to undermine the assumption that what the government is "already doing" is hunkey-dory.

60. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313158 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 9:59 pm

Comment #313155 by Evilcor

Those aren't the kinds of absolutes I am talking about, and you know it. I am talking about statements of rights and moral values.

Anyone claiming intrinsic moral values is in a very dodgy position in terms of rational discussion.

If you claim that something exists, you have to demonstrate it exists.

61. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313157 by mordacious1 on January 5, 2009 at 9:58 pm

Crap, I have to be off and when I return this thread will be another 5 pages down the road. *sighs*

62. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313156 by Frankus1122 on January 5, 2009 at 9:58 pm

611. Comment #313107 by mordacious1

I am saying that women rule their own bodies. No, humans should rule their own bodies.
There are rights or freedoms which we should all possess. Absolute autonomy is my preference. I ought to be able to do as I please as long as my choices do not impinge on your freedom to do as you wish. Because I do live in a society, my freedom comes at the cost of responsibility. I ought to be responsible for my actions. If what I do has a cost to the society in which I live I must be responsible for those costs.

What I do may be morally repugnant to you but if I do not interfere with your right to choose your own behaviour and I do not incur cost to the society in which I live who are you to decide for me? Sorry Worset, it is not a Lex Luther world yet but it is a fundamental question to be asked. We live in a society that does allow for most personal freedoms. This is not the case everywhere. What is the underpinning of your belief that allows you to feel it right to impose your views and values on me?

63. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313155 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Poison is poisonous, Steve. If I step out of a tall builing, I will surely die. Tumors don't improve your 5-year survival chances. Opiates feel wonderful. Failiure to reproduce reduces your genetic representation in the world of the future. Gunshots to the head ruin any evening. Nuclear Winter has no silver lining for us. A resurfacing of the Earth would be bad. It's never wrong to protect your children from dingoes. Don't end an English sentence with a preposition or dangling participle unless you're seeking artistic effect. Fire burns. Never eat a taco bigger than your own head.

Would you like some more absolutes Steve?

64. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313154 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Comment #313150 by root2squared

That isn't the point I am making. Whether or not something is illegal, our interactions with others mean that issues about freedoms may not be as simple as they may seem at first.

65. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313153 by mordacious1 on January 5, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Titania

Thanks, replied.

66. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313152 by Laurie Fraser on January 5, 2009 at 9:56 pm

Comment #313149 by Evilcor

Good point. Very good point. The Australian stolen generations are a good case in point. Most evidence suggests that removal is not in the child's interest in most cases. Obviously, there are some cases where it is unavoidable. But counselling, treatment and support at all levels can have better outcomes for all.

67. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313151 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:55 pm

Nice thread....but time to go..Good night all.

Titania...thanks..your surge turned the tide of the battle for us.

Hey! The surge worked :)

68. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313150 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:53 pm

633. Comment #313142 by Steve Zara

I agree that if it were to be legalized there should be regulations to ensure it does not harm society. Like say, having a minimum age so that the person is mature enough to make such a decision. And restricting their areas of operation and so on.

Other than that I do not see why it can be moral to make it illegal. Some of us make money with our minds. Why prevent others from using their body?

69. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313149 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 9:49 pm

I'm running out of patience with an argument people have been using here. Even RD his-own-self used it.

What in the name of Dog makes you think that a practice - removal of children - is legitimate by virtue of its current application? The fact that it's being done already is not, ipso facto, an endorsement of its fundamental justice.

Ok, I've seen families where the kids needed to go somewhere - anywhere - else, but the mere fact that we take kids is not proof-positive that even that is an acceptable imposition. I happen to think that it is, but one can hardly be serious in arguing that existing policy is self-legitimizing.

"Stalin's policy of killing Kulaks is acceptable - after all, he's already starving them!"

"Since we already require Negroes to ride in back, surely it is no great imposition to make them walk."

What I'm saying is, stop using the argument that we can just expand whatever policy is already in place. Think of forced contraception as a new policy; independent of whatever hully-gully we're currently trying out.

70. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313148 by Laurie Fraser on January 5, 2009 at 9:48 pm

No wuckers, T. :)

71. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313147 by Laurie Fraser on January 5, 2009 at 9:47 pm

Correct on both counts, Brian. The thrust of my argument is that it is too easy, too simplistic to just take the retributive road.

72. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313146 by Brian English on January 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Fair enough. So, I'm the liar. Sweet.

Please, don't click on any link, you might learn something. Maybe even to think for yourself. And that might be dangerous. :)

73. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313145 by Titania on January 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Laurie,

I'll respond to your email soon. I've had a lot of stuff going on.

Great posts tonight.

I also want to pick your brain on some things.

Happy New Year.

74. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313144 by jgirolamo on January 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm

signing off, work tomorrow. Hope you all have a wonderful day!

75. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313143 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Comment #313140 by Titania

Sorry if I have misunderstood. You have really made me think about new aspects of this issue.

76. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313142 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 9:43 pm

Comment #313134 by root2squared

That wasn't how Evilcor was framing the argument.

It was about his freedom to do what he liked with his body, not about the effect on others.

If he wants to link his freedom to the rights of others, that is fine by me. That is the point I have been trying to make.

77. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313141 by Brian English on January 5, 2009 at 9:42 pm

There are some cases in which compulsory sterilisation may be warranted. In most cases, however, the better solution requires a large-scale effort by society, through the state, to lift people out of the cycle of disease and poverty.

Sadly, I think we need more economic hardship before the free-marketers and economic rationalists are sufficiently shut up so that Governments are bold enough to start a new deal like you suggest.

78. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313140 by Titania on January 5, 2009 at 9:42 pm

Steve and Styrer,

I am not really making an argument so much as pointing out the problems with the plan.

I do think it is important to prevent child abuse, but I am not convinced that forced contraception is the right or the best method.

I'll think on it awhile.

79. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313139 by jgirolamo on January 5, 2009 at 9:41 pm

nope, but I did not click on the link so all I know is what you said.

80. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313138 by Brian English on January 5, 2009 at 9:41 pm

Laurie, I think you forgot that a lot of people have psychological problems in the first place that lead them to get addicted. These need to be dealt with too.....

81. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313137 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 9:41 pm

Comment #313129 by Evilcor

Has it occured to you that prohibition is the reason for the "abusiveness" of drugs?

That doesn't change my point at all. Your freedoms are connected with the well-being and rights of others. There are no absolutes.

82. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313136 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 9:40 pm

Try passing all that through Congress Laurie.

83. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313135 by Brian English on January 5, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Are you saying the Australian Government is lying now? Bugger me, you're arrogant.

84. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313134 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:39 pm

To say that matters of drugs and prostitution is about ruling one's own body is naive. There is vast exploitation of others in the production of hard drugs, and in prostitution.

But a major reason for that is precisely that it is illegal!

85. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313133 by Styrer- on January 5, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Comment #313119 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 9:27 pm

Yes, it concerns me too, now.

But I would not want to throw away a policy which can stop the possible suffering of children. I think that to remain with this notion of compulsory contraception, there will need to be very strict impositions on the man's activities as soon as the child abuse charge has been handed down. It may be, in practice, stricter than that for the woman, given that the man can venture further afield and get up to naughties with other women.

I would therefore have no objection to seeing the man more heavily restricted by state agencies than the woman.

All of this might seem increasingly draconian, but draconian action is already taken by the state against offenders, and this one - seeking the prevention of child abuse and untold suffering - strikes me as a policy worth working on, and actually highly desirable.

Best,
Styrer

86. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313132 by jgirolamo on January 5, 2009 at 9:38 pm

I have to do the research first.

87. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313131 by root2squared on January 5, 2009 at 9:37 pm

It would be fun to have both a Muslim and Christian on here and have them debate on who is correct.

Make for a pretty hilarious session :D

88. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313130 by Laurie Fraser on January 5, 2009 at 9:37 pm

People who are addicted to drugs and alcohol have several problems. The first of these is a medical problem called addiction, with its concomitant psychological and behavioural effects. The second problem is the problem of social alienation, including the associated problems of poverty, unemployment, poor housing, limited opportunities, etc. The third problem is social stigmatisation: the common belief (held, even, by the more dim-witted members of this forum) that these victims of a disease are, actually, malfeasant criminals who deserve all of the sanctions the law can throw at them.

The third is the most sinister problem, because it allows society to hide from its responsibilities. There are some cases in which compulsory sterilisation may be warranted. In most cases, however, the better solution requires a large-scale effort by society, through the state, to lift people out of the cycle of disease and poverty.

89. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313129 by Evilcor on January 5, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Et tu, Steve? Has it occured to you that prohibition is the reason for the "abusiveness" of drugs?
I'll let you in on a little secret: all your favorite politicians, sports heroes, movie stars, and business executives are out of their fucking minds high. They just have the pull to get the nice, safe, legal shit while everybody else gets HepC.

90. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313128 by Brian English on January 5, 2009 at 9:33 pm

Now, jg, please retract your lie that every single river in the world when the mud that is dumped into the delta measures 4500 years old or less

91. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #313127 by Steve Zara on January 5, 2009 at 9:33 pm

Comment #313122 by jgirolamo

Then God isn't perfect, as part of him did, and could, die.

92. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008