251. 2006 Charles Simonyi Lecture: 'Can the Internet Save The Enlightenment?'

Comment #91154 by Rtambree on November 27, 2007 at 12:26 pm

18. Comment #91071 by AllanW

I'm sympathetic to your criticism of the lecture. People fresh to the ideas will get something out of it, but to a lecture veteran, it felt a little "phoned in" and meandering. Martin Rees, Susan Greenfield and Michio Kaku do the same thing: show a few pretty pics and then recycle the same powerpoint presentation for the next 10 years. The best work for many scientists is done in their 20s & 30s and they often coast on reputation after that. The bums on seats are there for the "big name" rather than the content. It's analogous to a '70s rock band on a nostalgia tour with the same setlist night after night.

It's the law of media: people will buy, edit, publish, film, etc the work of a "name" even if it's dull, rather than the work of "no name" even if it's brilliant.

252. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91143 by Rtambree on November 27, 2007 at 12:09 pm

They all need to answer questions about their beliefs. Mormonism is just as stupid as all the rest.

253. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #91106 by Rtambree on November 27, 2007 at 8:41 am

62. Comment #90808 by Fanusi Khiyal

Oh dear. Sounds like you're on a one-man crusade to turn Richarddawkins.Net into some sort of quasi-KKK organization: a pointy hat with a red "A" on it. Not in my name.

254. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91095 by Rtambree on November 27, 2007 at 7:40 am

83. Comment #91093 by Tyler Durden

Dawkins has made the point that statistically, there must be hundreds of atheists in state and federal legislatures but they're almost all closet atheists. Polls reveal people would rather have a female, gay, or black President, than an atheist President.

Yes, Stark is a counter-example of an open atheist. Good on him. But he's a rare exception - you must admit.

255. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91083 by Rtambree on November 27, 2007 at 7:08 am

>No it wouldn't be very funny , but the point is the Western world has developed taking the piss/being offensive of everything to a very fine art

My point would be that if you drove around Alabama with some of the above phrases on the side of your car, you'd probably stir up a hornets nest too. Admittedly, it takes a lot more effort to get a similar effect.

Here in England there was a bit of a row about the Jerry Springer the Opera testing the blasphemy laws, but no one got arrested, fined, or lashed.

256. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91072 by Rtambree on November 27, 2007 at 6:38 am

72. Comment #91068 by mrjonno

>Now that would be offensive!

In Top Gear, Clarkson and the boys drove through Alabama with "Hilary for President" written on the side of their car and that apparently offended the locals (although you can never tell how choreographed that show is).

But that's a pretty lame attempt at offence by the BBC. "Muhammed bends Jesus over" seems to get much more bang for your buck.

257. Monotheism was a con from the beginning

Comment #91050 by Rtambree on November 27, 2007 at 5:29 am

13. Comment #91018 by MuNky82

>Mother Theresa is a great example of this, only after her death her true convictions came out.

It does lead to an uncomfortable paradox, though. If Hitchens spends a book writing how immoral Theresa is, and then it turns out she's actually an atheist, then the religious can use this to support THEIR argument that atheists are immoral and that the truly devout are less so. Ditto for Jerry Falwell, who Hitchens called a fraud and charlatan - another evil atheist.

Hitchens doesn't seem to have acknowledged this Catch 22 situation yet. You can't called theists immoral and then imply they're really atheists. It's shooting your own argument in the foot. I'd be interested to know how Hitchens would respond to this. Luckily no religious debater has been astute enough to pick up on this and put it to him.

258. Monotheism was a con from the beginning

Comment #90943 by Rtambree on November 26, 2007 at 6:40 pm

So to what degree are the Popes, Cardinals, Jesuits, Archbishops, Rabbis, Mullahs, Ayatollahs
and other high-ranking clerics actually consciously in on the act?

Obviously, the masses swallow the whole con hook line and sinker, but I wonder if the further you go up the heirachy, the more atheist, cynical, power hungry and exploitative the religious leaders become.

259. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #90922 by Rtambree on November 26, 2007 at 4:58 pm

40. Comment #90920 by nogodsever

>Mohammed can suck my dick.

That would make Mohammed your bitch.

260. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #90814 by Rtambree on November 26, 2007 at 12:35 pm

5. Comment #90813 by Fanusi Khiyal

>I am just waiting to hear how those 40 lashes are all the fault of Western foreign policy.

And we're all just waiting for you to blame Chomsky for the lashes. C'mon - I'm sure you can get Chomsky in this topic somehow. You normally do. Go on - make us laugh one more time.

261. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #90812 by Rtambree on November 26, 2007 at 12:29 pm

There's something ironic in naming a child's teddy bear after a pedophile.

262. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90674 by Rtambree on November 26, 2007 at 5:25 am

63. Comment #90665 by stephenray #63.

Well said. The rich twits exchange their money for status and bragging rights. Blair reminds me of McGrath - well-spoken but half-insane. Being articulate disguises the lunacy within and most people fall for it.

263. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #90672 by Rtambree on November 26, 2007 at 5:22 am

If religion makes any difference in the universe (i.e. if a supernatural agent moves even a single atom) then it falls into the realm of scientific observation and testing and can be falsified.

Religious claims can be tested (and are always found wanting) and even the neurology of religous belief can be tested (why are some people immune to superstition and others lap up all sorts of mumbo jumbo?). Anthropologists can compare and contrast religions and the development of religions over time and geography.

Only people that shrink religion down to a mere discussion of abstract ideas can claim N.O.M. - but who among the faithful think of religion as just a philosophical discussion?

Claiming N.O.M. is just an artificial way to prevent criticism... "Oh no, those scientists want to snatch away my invisible teddy bear"

264. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90594 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 5:31 pm

23. Comment #90426 by steve99

>Blair was far from perfect, but to claim he was nothing but a spinner is to ignore major achievements of the past 10 years.

This reminds me of a quote from Halmet...

"So, oft it chances in particular men,
That for some vicious mole of nature in them,
As, in their birth--wherein they are not guilty,
Since nature cannot choose his origin--
By the o'ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason,
Or by some habit that too much o'er-leavens
The form of plausive manners, that these men,
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Being nature's livery, or fortune's star,--
Their virtues else--be they as pure as grace,
As infinite as man may undergo--
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault"

>Comment #90532 by Matt7895

>I just can't stand people calling Blair and Bush war criminals when there are far more ghastly people in the world (Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad are just a few)

They're criminals too. Why should it be mutually exclusive? There's a continuum of criminality and all parties are responsible for the atrocities they commit, whether it's hundreds, thousands or millions of corpses.

265. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90516 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 12:02 pm

>They both had the backings of their democratic systems, in Bush's case it is was congress, in Blair's it was parliament.

Most polls before the invasion were against the invasion. And in any case, just because Congress or Parliament votes for an invasion, doesn't automatically mean legal under international law or right morally.

>it was to remove a brutal dictator who refused to comply with common decency and sanctions.

Really? That's a bit of selective revision. All that talk about disarming Saddam from his WMDs was just a lie then?

This has been debated ad naseum on this forum on a hundred different topics. I'll waste no time on it any longer. If you want to join the apologetics for whatever atrocities your government happens to commit, that's your choice.

266. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90486 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 9:51 am

36. Comment #90468 by Peacebeuponme

>No, I'm sure Saddam would have bought them all their own house and given each Shia family their own Sunni butler.

So, what are you saying? The west picked up where Saddam left off?

Not really - there was a big gap between the peak of Saddam's atrocities in the late 1980s (with the approval of western powers) and the invasion. How much slaughter was there while Iraq was crawling with weapons inspectors - late 2002 - early 2003? Had the international weapons inspectors remained, there would have been no slaughter by Saddam or by the west.

All this could've have been avoided in the first gulf war if the west had supported the uprising and not allowed Saddam to crush his own people. A bottom-up overthrow is much more democratic than a top-down external overthrow.

When polled, most Iraqis now think they are worse off than before 2003 and they want an immediate withdrawal or a timetable for withdrawal, something Blair resisted. So much for his championing of democracy.

267. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90466 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 8:26 am

>If we didn't have him we'd have had William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith or Michael Howard, which would have been terrible

But perhaps not the slaughter in Iraq of tens of thousands, if not, hundreds of thousands, dead.

268. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90455 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 7:35 am

>Even in British society I think there would be some discomfort about having an avowedly atheist PM, which no doubt accounts for many politicians' apparent mild religiosity

You're probably right, Northern Bright. Belief in belief, even among atheists. The latest figures show that there are only about 1 million regular C of E church goers in a country of 60 million. It's strange why there should be acceptance of, or insistence upon, religiosity in our leaders. What would be so politically damaging upon a leader that openly declared his or her policies would be evidence-based?

Even Aragorn sang a prayer during his coronation, and all the Hobbits, Men, Elves and Dwarves present weren't offended. :)

Ironically, New Zealand, where Middle Earth was filmed, has an openly agnostic leader, Helen Clark, so there are exceptions (although they are rare).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3554978

From memory, Bob Hawke, Australia's PM from 1983 to 1991, was also an agnostic.

269. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90422 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 4:50 am

>I think we let him off too lightly if we don't also look at the people who could directly influence him

Aren't Brown and Cameron also theists?

Just like Rudd and Howard (and Costello and Abbott) in Australian politics?

Two irreligious countries, and yet all mainstream party leaders are religious.

270. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90409 by Rtambree on November 25, 2007 at 3:59 am

Mention that there's no God in the USA, and you're a nutter.

Just goes to show how cultural belief is, rather than something innately wired into us.

What I find interesting is why countries elect leaders that are MORE religious than the average of the population. Blair is a classic example, but it happens in Australia, north America and western Europe. Do religious people have more energy to enable them to get them to the top? Or do atheists not mind voting for nutters? Quite a few poeple on this forum have admitted voting for Democrat theists like Kerry and Gore.

271. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #90349 by Rtambree on November 24, 2007 at 12:39 pm

264. Comment #90312 by Fanusi Khiyal

>how they scurried like cockroaches to find excuses not to stand up against it. I will not forget that. And I will not forget these others.

Sounds exactly like Rwandan radio in June 1994

272. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #90193 by Rtambree on November 23, 2007 at 11:32 am

>Well, alone except for all the other racist anti-semites like Chomsky.

If you want to be taken seriously, it helps not to write foaming-at-the-mouth drivel like that above. I'm sure many people won't even consider it worth their while to waste their time answering each of your points, valid or invalid, when you clearly are deranged.

273. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89689 by Rtambree on November 21, 2007 at 1:57 pm

I saw Ayaan today at the Royal Society of the Arts in London and boy oh boy, her security guards are built like tanks. They need a lot of steaks and bacon and eggs, so keep those donations rolling in.

274. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89424 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 4:54 pm

I was transfixed by how many graphics, images and scroll bars there were on the screen at the same time. I can't follow it all. I guess I need a Quad-Core CPU implant.

275. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89412 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Producer: "Gee, ratings are down and it's a slow news day. What can we do to give us a boost? I know, we'll get Hitch in. He's good for an instant headline"

276. 'Secular Believers'

Comment #89312 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 9:29 am

8. Comment #88515 by crazy old man

>we have a creature who has found himself a very comfortable living coming up with fancy ways to say "Yeah...well MAYBE!"

Well said. And neither his fellow Oxford academic colleagues, or his students, or his publishers, or the journalists that interview him, seem to see through the charade.

277. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89271 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 6:16 am

165. Comment #89267 by wednesdayguevara

>A private citizen is not entitled to protection in the US unless she is in the witness protection program. What the market will bear, and all that.

I can remember seeing Al Pacino performing Salome on Broadway in New York in 2003, and when he left the theatre, he was surrounded by a cordon of NYC policemen, in uniform, to protect him from the masses. I can remember thinking at the time "strange that a Hollywood celebrity gets taxpayer-funded protection from the official city policy force". Perhaps Police Officers can also do work for private security firms? If so, why the official police uniforms? Perhaps some NYC locals can clarify...?

278. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89220 by Rtambree on November 20, 2007 at 3:11 am

160. Comment #89214 by Peacebeuponme

>If we can allow Bizzaro Dawkins, Wee Flea and Dianelos Georgoudis a run, I'm sure we can deal with a bit of lively debate here

Actually, the Wee Flea got banned from this site for being a troll. But he did have a good run.

279. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #89122 by Rtambree on November 19, 2007 at 6:35 pm

4. Comment #89056 by Not the Messiah

>This is just an example of his good manners - when you're a guest in someone's house, you respect their rules..

Then again, there's been instances where Hitchens lights up in a NON SMOKING venue. I've heard him get into verbal stoushes with audience members who don't want to breathe in his smoke.

280. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89120 by Rtambree on November 19, 2007 at 6:34 pm

112. Comment #89051 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

>Rtambree am I off base here?

No, I fully agree with you, Brian.

281. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89005 by Rtambree on November 19, 2007 at 1:11 pm

For those in London who want to see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she'll be appearing at the Royal Society of the Arts this Wedesday 21st November at 1pm. Tickets are free.

http://www.rsa.org.uk/events/detail.asp?eventID=2440

http://www.rsa.org.uk/events/speakerCloseUp.asp?speakerID=1799

I'll be there supporting her.

282. Mind your manners

Comment #88385 by Rtambree on November 16, 2007 at 11:35 am

Henri's in the top five trolls on RD.Net

You're right, NMcC, better to just ignore him.

283. Mind your manners

Comment #88219 by Rtambree on November 15, 2007 at 11:50 am

>'excommunicated' from public office or debate if one does not believe in the present ideology: cultural Marxism/political correctness/multi-nationalism.

In Australia it's the opposite. The Opposition Leader has gone out of his way to prove how conservative he is, as socialism is such a dirty word. You couldn't get elected in Australia if you subscribed to cultural Marxism. Bush got re-elected with an increased majority with "family values" being a deciding factor, and New Labour got multiple terms in the UK, so I don't know what you mean by "excommunicated" if you aren't a Marxist.

284. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88215 by Rtambree on November 15, 2007 at 11:20 am

Dawkins says he's hostile to a "rival doctrine" and it had an obvious cut (or edit) between shots as he was saying it.

Dawkins needs to have his own tape recorder with him at all times during interviews so he can't be quoted out of context.

285. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88207 by Rtambree on November 15, 2007 at 10:55 am

Oooh - evolution is one big conspiracy by a clandestine cabal of egg-headed scientists orchestrated out of their secret base underneath Darwin's House near London. Beware, the new Knights Templar.

286. I Am, Therefore I Rationalize

Comment #87923 by Rtambree on November 13, 2007 at 4:29 pm

>9. Comment #87824 by sbe

>Rtambree, your counter argument is quite silly. What about all the scientists who believed that the body was composed of and functioned by a proper balance of "humors"?

I already told you - I agree. As I said in my last post (did you read it) - like philosophers, scientists stumble about in the dark too, and most have been wrong about most things. The history of science (and philosophy) is a history of 99.999% false guesses.

Not just humours, but phlogiston, geocentric Earth, plum pudding model of the atom, caloric theory of heat, phrenology of the brain, Lamarckianism, static universe, the list goes on and one - so may incorrect scientific (and philosophical) theories.

We inch slowly forward - 10 steps forward, 9 steps backwards. Our brains simply aren't sophisticated or powerful enough to work things out unaided.

>And what other knowledge do we have? Try art, literature, philosophy, politics, etc. I know you're not really as ignorant as you seem.

They're not knowledge. Politics is just opinions. Art is just a vector for delivering beauty (e.g. stimulating dopamine receptors, etc). There's no Truth in art - any artist who thinks they're discovering great Truths in their painting or poetry is a flakey wanker, and even more useless than philosophers.

P.S. btw, hello again Bonzai - I see we're often on the same side in these discussions.

287. I Am, Therefore I Rationalize

Comment #87812 by Rtambree on November 13, 2007 at 8:05 am

>6. Comment #87501 by sbe

>It was philosophers, not scientists who demonstrated that god does not exist.

Really? What about the hundreds of other philsophers before and afterwards that "demonstrated" that God must exist? Why did it take philosophy over 2,000 years to reach the right conclusion? It wouldn't happen to be anything to do with developments in science throughout the Enlightenment, would it?

>The world would be a very poor place indeed if all the knowledge at our disposal came only from science

It does. What else is there? Intuition? Revelation? Authority? Tradition? What can you work out in your coconut other than "I think therefore I am"? In Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers books there was a computer that deduced the existance of lemon-soaked napkins from first principles, but I don't think humans can deduce anything of significance without observation.

Philosophy and rationalism employ language and human cognition, both of which map imperfectly onto reality. Our brains are largely savannah ape brains after all.

I agree with you about Newton - wasting his time with alchemy and eschatology. In addition to all the philosophers, most scientists have got most things wrong over history. They're just stabbing blindly in the dark as well, but the light of science shines brightest.

288. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #87792 by Rtambree on November 13, 2007 at 6:24 am

That's right SMART, I pray every night for the sun to rise the next day, and the Lord makes it happen.

22. Comment #87745 by irate_atheist

>Another poll showed that 5 out of 10 adults were below average intelligence...

Good one - a pity we can't get an IQ break-up of the article's statistics. Here in England, I've often found it's both the lower working classes and upper classes that don't bother much with religion - it seems to be most prevalent in the middle classes.

289. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87734 by Rtambree on November 13, 2007 at 2:07 am

>Or did you have on mind voting for the Communist Party?

Yeah, that's brilliant analysis Keith. Anyone who agrees with something Chomsky said must be a Commie.

Waste of time, this.

290. Bill Moyers interviews Jonathan Miller

Comment #87536 by Rtambree on November 12, 2007 at 11:55 am

Jonathan Miller's series did have some legs after broadcast on Demonoid (seeing as it wasn't available on DVD, people had less guilt about downloading it), but now the bittorrent tracker has been recently taken down.

291. I Am, Therefore I Rationalize

Comment #87140 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 10:03 am

Rationalism is overrated. Anyone can rationalise anything: post-hoc explanations, cognitive dissonance, commencing with the conclusion and working backwards, pattern-seeking, self-delusion, the left-hemipshere interpreter, apologetics, yadda yadda. Armchair philosophy, no matter now carefully done, always ends up in wild speculation that has nothing to do with reality.

Empiricism trumps rationalism.

In academia, there's far too many "intellectuals" interpreting too little new data. Hence, the signal to noise ratio is poor.

292. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87089 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 6:55 am

Keith,
If you were honest and examined the entire quote, you'll see it's an analogy to religious thinking.
Hyperpatriotic yanks would be one subgroup of reflexive Chomsky critics, but certainly not the only group (see post #120 above for a list of others).

293. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87082 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 6:42 am

121. Comment #87076 by steve99

>I am not prepared to forgive Livingstone's foolishness because he is not as bad as others

I didn't say that. I said condemnation should be proportional to the crime. It's not a dichotomous world - all can be condemned. One party doesn't have to be condemned at the exclusion of the other.

Keith
>to his readership lest they think that America really is the sole wrong-doer

Chomsky doesn't say that. He attacks UK, Turkey, Indonesia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Saddam, just to name a few off the top of my head from recent writings.

294. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87075 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 6:31 am

Keith,

>Perhaps you think that a few false alarms, a few false accusations just keeps the US government on its toes because it knows someone is watching. However, I think what also happens is that confidence in the government among the general public is seriously undermined. This is fine if the government has genuinely behaved badly. However, if it gets savaged regardless of whether it acts morally or immorally then there is much less reason to be seen to be moral. I mean, why bother. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

How are western governments getting "savaged"? The Blair, Bush and Howard governments were all RE-ELECTED for another term of office, two of them with INCREASED majorities. It's a case of "rewarded if they do good, rewarded if they do bad".

I can't believe you honestly feel sorry for poor misunderstood western governments. Are they so maligned? Should they be defended more from nasty bullying critics? Have they had their feelings hurt by Chomsky et al? You make me laugh.

>I thought it was daft of you to say that anyone who doesn't trust Chomsky must necessarily love America

I never said it.

I know plenty of non-Americans might not like Chomsky, not just Yankee patriots. Marxists might not like him. Postmodernists may not like him. Religious people may not like him. Conservatives may not like him. Corporate CEOs may not like him. Media moguls may not like him. Israeli settlers may not like him. Weapons contractors may not like him.

295. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87071 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 6:24 am

>Egypt homosexuality is a criminal offence

And Egypt is one of the largest recipients of US aid

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html

So I ask you which is the greater offense? How do you reconcile spending so many posts attacking Livingstone's "honoured friend" phrase while ignoring abuses against homosexuals on a vastly more serious scale, all supported by right wing governments? The gay community were fine with Livingstone about it - they didn't feel he was out of line. You're taking it a lot more seriously.

Shouldn't condemnation should be proportional to the crime? Sure, what occured that one time in London was wrong, but what occurs in Saudi Arabia and Egypt against gays all time is 1,000 times worse. So why isn't the west placing conditions on its aid & support in return for improvements in human rights? Here it can do something about it. Don't forget many states in the USA and Australia forbid gay marriage. Ken Livingstone hasn't forbid gay marriage or suppressed any gay rights.

296. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87059 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 5:55 am

Steve99,

Granted. "honoured friend" is the wrong phrase. No argument from me.

>and you ignore the views of groups whose rights these people threaten

Can you elaborate? Are you talking gays? If so, this has already been addressed above: Livingstone didn't ignore their views, (in fact they support him and he them) and the cleric isn't in any position powerful enough to threaten their rights in London.

297. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87055 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 5:45 am

>Of course it is, but does that mean you won't condemn it?

Of course, I condemn any religious irrationality - regardless if its from Islamic clerics or the Church of England or Catholic or whatever.

As regards to the conference: it's a question of tactics. Do you help or hinder community relations if all groups are represented in discussion? Or are things better if one or more factions that you disagree with are excluded?

I'm agnostic about this. I guess I would support whatever the evidence suggests. With the IRA, violence went down once discussions were entered into, rather than the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" rule.

I concede you might not be able to extrapolate to all scenarios from this example, and there may be a role for exclusion e.g. Turkey is not permitted to enter the EU until it cleans up its human rights abuses. So, a case by case empirical approach is probably best.

You're correct - the left needs to be coherent to be effective critics, but given the fact the right are actually in power, it's a waste of effort to spend 95% of one's time pointing out weaknesses in the left when they perhaps only contribute to 5% of the real-world problems (e.g. Livingstone).

298. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87050 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 5:25 am

Steve99,

>I am left-wing, some may even call me socialist. I want to be one of the good guys, which is why I want the left-wing to 'clean up',

What to you mean by clean up? Only when the left is 100% perfect, then it is to be taken seriously? Is the left monolithic anyway? Is it even humanly possible for any political movement to attain these standards?

>One doesn't win any moral arguments with claims that we may be bad, but at least we aren't as bad as the right wingers.

One left-wing city mayor sending a limo over for al-Qaradawi (while ignoring his homophobia) is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE different from the Queen, PM and US President sucking up to, giving diplomatic support to, and arming, the House of Saud, with all its many human rights abuses.

Yes, one does win moral arguments in this fashion - as it is consequences that count, not abstractions about being perfect before you can act.

299. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87042 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 5:00 am

Keith,

>After all, you just read an article critcical of Chomsky. What came to my mind was that if true, this was a rather damning indictment of the way he works.

Let's assume that you are correct and the left is all completely lunatic. Let's assume everything that comes from the left is wrong, a lie, crazy, harmful, misguided, whatever, etc.

Given the fact that right-wing or conservative governments are in power in USA (the world's only superpower), UK (New Labor is essentially right-wing across a range of issues), and in Australia, Germany, etc, then isn't it still the responsibility of people that want to improve society to speak out against power, and the abuses of power?

In such a scenario, criticising the (powerless) left is analogous to walking into a lunatic asylum and making fun of the crazy people. Too easy and not very courageous.

If the world's major powers were all left-wing governments, and atrocities were taking place, then it's still the responsibility of all people to critisise power. However, that's not the case at present.

How are your criticisms improving the world? You're trying desperately to expose some error or inconsistency (among thousands of statements) of Chomsky who has no political power whatsoever, nor does he aspire to political power.

It's cowardly, impotent and hypocritical to only criticise soft targets where it has no consequences and can't improve anybody's life. It's a waste or your time, and ours. In fact, it's counter-productive, because you are inadvertently defending whatever the status quo happens to be and whatever atrocities that do take place. Not very admirable.

The responsibility of thinking people is to analyse and criticise power, regardless of WHO is in power: left, right, authoritarian, or libertarian, etc.

300. Neuroscience and Moral Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny

Comment #87034 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 4:12 am

If you want to talk about "vile" and playing host to nutjobs... the Queen has been giving the House of Saud the Royal treatment, literally, last week. This is a repressive theocratic regime with real (not just declared) human rights abuses comparable to, or in excess of, Iran's, as well as rotten with corruption and terrorist-sponsoring.

If Livingstone is vile for sending around a limo for al-Qaradawi, what's the Queen and the entire British (and USA) political establishment, for its nauseating begging, scraping and bowing to the House of Saud?