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

Comment #87024 by Rtambree on November 11, 2007 at 3:04 am

99. Comment #87022 by steve99

Your accusation doesn't work because Yusuf al-Qaradawi's antigay stance isn't supported by Livingstone.

Has Livingstone ever brought in any anti-gay legislation or made it tougher for gays in any way, shape or form? (John Howard, PM of Australia, on the other hand, has gone out of his way to specifically ban gay marriage).

Surely there must be something else to be considered "vile"? It seems entry into the "vile club" is exceedingly easy.

From KL's Wiki page:

"The Lesbian and Gay Coalition against Racism issued a statement of support for Livingstone signed, among others, by Ben Summerskill of Stonewall and Linda Bellos, which cited his record of support for gay rights "irrespective of the differing views over his meeting with the Muslim scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi".[65] The row went on for many months, with Livingstone insistent that the mayor of a major diverse city had a duty to maintain close relationships with all faith groups even if he disagreed with some of their views."

302. The good that comes from belief

Comment #86627 by Rtambree on November 9, 2007 at 7:00 pm

20. Comment #86618 by A. Person on November 9, 2007 at 5:54 pm

>Deep down, most people don't care about the "truth value" of claims.

Even if it's correct, it's a pretty misanthropic view - to paraphrase, it's saying humans can't handle truth - they need a layer of fantasy, a security blanket, in order to keep going.

However, the enormous variation in religiosity between countries suggests that there is strong cultural component (it's not all "human nature"). There's also a strong correlation between science literacy and irreligiosity, so I would counter that people CAN handle the truth if conditions are right (education, standard of living, economic security, etc).

303. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #86603 by Rtambree on November 9, 2007 at 5:12 pm

It's the other way around - If you need to concoct supernatural deities and events, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold on its own.

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

Comment #86594 by Rtambree on November 9, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Bonzai,

>Actually I would add that he is not above flaming and biting sarcasm in debates and not just in politics. He has ongoing, very acrimonious verbal spars with psychologists, cognitive scientists and AI researchers who don't see things his way. Sometimes he can be almost abusive in these exchanges. His debate with Jean Piaget was a case in point. If I remember correctly Danette seems to have been a victim as well.

Yes, I recall a ruthless savaging of Alan Dershowitz a while ago. I wouldn't like to be in the firing line. Chomsky's public persona is often meek and mild with a gentle but awkward and uncharasmatic oratory style, but when he lets loose... ouch.

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

Comment #86588 by Rtambree on November 9, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Steve99,

>I can't pin it down precisely, but Chomsky seems to me to share with others (such as Galloway and Pilger) a kind of distorting lens through which they view both current events and history. Everything they write and say seems reasonable in and of itself, until you compare them with historical facts, then it seems to me that the bias becomes apparent.

It seems you're desperately trying to find a chink in the armour, a flaw in the logic, something to disagree with.

Keep digging. I'm sure that after 40 years, writing millions of words about hundreds of subjects, there must be inconsistencies. After all, who has ever been absolutely correct and consistent about everything throughout their careers?

But is this a variation of confirmation bias - i.e. those that disagree with you must be perfect in every pronoucement ever made, otherwise the whole edifice crashes down like a house of cards.
But keep searching- I'd be surprised if you didn't find something.

I've only been reading Chomsky from about 1999 onwards, and by large it seems fine so far. I especially enjoyed "Understanding Power" in his trashing of Marxism and ideologies in general. And he's not afraid to call French postmodernists frauds. I also found it eye-opening when he drew attention to little known trouble-spots such as East Timor and Nicaragua and well-known trouble-spot with a different perspective.

I'm reminded of the quote from George Monbiot's website which might explain some of the hostility...

"Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it."

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

Comment #86563 by Rtambree on November 9, 2007 at 4:08 pm

EB, Chomsky is an atheist - he was just asking the interviewer to elaborate on what definition of God he is being asked about. Many atheists use this tactic. Which God? Whose God?
Elsewhere Chomsky has been quite upfront that religion is irrational.

Yes, he points to the liberation theology of some Jesuits in Latin America (e.g. Oscar Romero in Salvador), murdered by fascists, as one of the more positive roles played by religion. Most atheists acknowledge that churches have done some good some of the time: orphanages, soup kitchens, refuges, etc.

I agree with your other summaries, other than to de-emphasise the socialist part, as he is very vague on that. What little he does say tends toward syndico-anarchism (one of the factions in the Spanish Civil War) and a rejection of any concentrated state power. Overall, he doesn't really seem to subscribe to any great ideology ('tablet from the Mount') view of political organisation. He seems to prefer a piecemeal approach - improve something - see what happens - if it works, good, if it doesn't, try something else. Evolution, rather than revolution.

I might also add the following point-summaries:

- In 2000 he supported Ralph Nader, in 2004 he pragmatically argued for voting for Democrat in marginal states, as the small differences in the parties can have important consequences. In order words, Kerry's administation might have only been 95% as bad as Bush's, but that 5% difference is still better than nothing.

- He's a formidable debater and often buries the opposition in a plethora of facts and examples. Most of the smarter conservatives have learnt not to take him on in public. However he's getting on - close to 80 now, so he might make an easier target in a debate these days.

- He has a very high threshold of what constitutes science - in order words, physics and chemistry count, but the more you get into the humanities and social sciences, the more academics only pretend to know what's going on. He often cites the "three-body problem" as an example of how the human brain can't cope with complex situations, hence the piecemeal approach to improving society.

- Chomsky emphasises that people judge an institution by its consequences and actions, rather than its declarations or intentions. Consequentialism?

- He distrusts all concentrated power - whether it is government, corporate, media or theocratic.

- He's not a pacifist, but he subscribes to the view that the onus is on those who advocate violence to justify it.

- The reason why he concentrates on American atrocities is that he is a citizen of the USA. All citizens should criticise their own governments first and foremost as that's where it will have most effect if they genuinely care about reducing violence and suffering in the world. It doesn't have to be exclusive criticism, but seeing as governments and media already do a good job at pointing the fingers at other states, one more voice in the din isn't going to be as effective. If you want analysis of enemy atrocities, go to the "Foreign Policy" journal or the Washington Post, who employ a battalion of correspondents cataloguing others' crimes. To accuse Chomsky of not spending enough time criticising other regimes is silly - what would a 10,001st voice add?

- Above all, Chomsky's main contribution, imho, is to burst the bubble of western exceptionalism. We should apply the same standards to ourselves as we apply to others. It's that simple.

If I had to venture a criticism, I'd say that he often harshly berates fellow academics and journalists for not speaking out against atrocities (the responsibility of public intellectuals) when they might face career consequences.

It's easier for him to go against the grain, because he got tenure at MIT a long time ago, as he already made his name in another field (linguistics). Younger academics can't hope to be as brave if they want promotions, support a family, etc. And being Jewish, he can more confidently speak out against settlements in the West Bank without being labelled antisemitic, an advantage that other critics might not have.

307. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86237 by Rtambree on November 8, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Hitchens and Pat Robertson have something in common - they both prefer Giuliani as President.

Only a few weeks to go until Pat Robertson's 2007 prophecy about terrorist attacks on the USA expires. From his Wiki page...

"On January 2, 2007, during the 700 Club show, Robertson said that God spoke to him and told him that "mass killings" were to come during 2007, due to a terrorist attack on the United States. He added "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."[77]"

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

Comment #86128 by Rtambree on November 8, 2007 at 7:56 am

>Chomsky is a man of faith. He has faith in anti-americanism

Wrong again, Steve99. Chomsky has often said that the USA is the greatest country in the world, and praises its free open society, libel laws, parts of the constitution, etc.

Criticising the faults in your government so that people might ultimately benefit, is actually PRO-American.

Examining the underlying root causes of problems, rather than just reacting to symptoms all the time, is a better means to overcoming those problems.

To criticise one party in a dispute doesn't immediately imply you think the other party is guiltless. Both can be condemned. Surely, it's not that cognitively complex for you to grasp that the world is not always neatly dichotomous.

The whole issue of the Serb massacre was dealt with when the Guardian had to withdraw and apologise for its assertions in 2005/2006. That's an old hat - try again. And try and be honest this time.

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

Comment #86066 by Rtambree on November 8, 2007 at 3:44 am

Brilliant Xenocratic - you obviously put a lot of effort into refuting someone who probably didn't deserve the attention lavished on him. Your list of atrocities could easily have been three times as long, but that won't make any difference to the brainwashed, just like all the evidence of evolution makes little impact on the fundamentalists.

The thinking goes something like this:

I love the USA
Chomsky criticises the USA
I don't like that
Therefore Chomsky is wrong

A bit like:

I love God
Dawkins criticises God
I don't like that
Therefore Dawkins is wrong

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

Comment #86059 by Rtambree on November 8, 2007 at 3:11 am

>America is, in fact, the least imperialist power in human history

God Bless America.

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

Comment #85979 by Rtambree on November 7, 2007 at 4:48 pm

>People (especially Americans) cannot handle that. They live in a dream world in which the US can do no wrong

There's a lot of brainwashing to overcome - it's like being in one big cult. To escape one has to jettison God, Jesus and the Bible, which many just can't face. And even if they do that, they then have to jettison worship of the flag and the free market, and all the hyperpatriotism and unquestioning support of whatever the President does. That's a lot of deprogramming.

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

Comment #85934 by Rtambree on November 7, 2007 at 2:06 pm

>I also notice that you are unable to deal with the central point of Chomsky's relentless support for tyrranny

>Would you trust someone who had apologised for the Nazis to pass judgement on moral matters

Oh dear - is Fox News or Commentary your only source of information?

I've been reading many of Chomsky's books since about 1999 and he only speaks out AGAINST tyranny: Latin America, Middle East, East Timor, Africa, Israel, etc.

I also notice that when people try to smear Chomsky, such as happened in the Guardian last year, they have to resort to misquoting, quoting out of context, and outright lies, and the Guardian ended up having to apologise. This sort of thing happens time and time again.

Chomsky's premise is simple - all governments are responsible for their actions, and all are to be judged by the same standards. There should be no single country exempted - e.g. why does the USA not sign up to the International Criminal Court?Why does the USA often vote against 170+ countries in the UN General Assembly?

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

Comment #85855 by Rtambree on November 7, 2007 at 10:38 am

>Perhaps not, but he was prepared to look the other way and pretend that no atrocities happened in case it tarnished the reputation of another communist regime.

Gee, you give Chomsky a lot of credit here. According to you, Steve99, Chomsky can single- handedly tarnish or cause not to be tarnished the reputation of a Communist regime.

C'mon be serious - the mainstream press does quite a good job at exposing the atrocities of official enemies. Cold War propaganda was a huge industry.

It's one's own atrocities that one needs to speak up about. These are often ignored in the mainstream press e.g. the thousands of innocents killed by the USA in Cambodia that not many know about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu

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

Comment #85849 by Rtambree on November 7, 2007 at 10:20 am

12. Comment #85828 by Bonzai

Good point about Pinker and Chomsky. There's a lot of overlap about innateness in human nature, role of language, etc, and Pinker cites Chomsky quite often in his writings about linguistics.

The argument "Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge" and therefore anything he says is wrong, smells like "Stalin was an atheist" and therefore anything atheists say is wrong.

Even if it was true, which it's not, what about the other 99.99% of his writing about corporate welfare, Indonesia and East Timor, Chile 1973, union legislation, atheism, media ownership, denouncing postmodernism, denouncing Marxism, Israel and West Bank, etc?

>>Indirectly, in his criticism of Francois Ponchaud's book "Cambodia: Year Zero". He accused it of having an 'anti-communist bias and message'. His views on this matter were distinctly dodgy.

Ha ha - is that the best ammunition you've got against Chomsky? A paraphrased book review of someone else's book written 30 years ago?

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

Comment #85847 by Rtambree on November 7, 2007 at 10:14 am

All Chomsky does is generalise - so that if it's wrong for one country to invade, cause atrocities, etc, then it's wrong for other countries to do the same.

Chomsky treats the USA like it's just one more country - and applies the same standards to it that are applied to other countries. If it's wrong for Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan, then it's also wrong for the USA to invade Iraq, by the same rules and standards.

Much of Chomsky's writing is simply debunking the "exceptionalism" of western powers - i.e. they can be somehow deserve to be judged by different standards.

Chomsky doesn't spend any time criticising the far right loonies like Coulter or O'Reilly, but the supposedly "moderates" or "liberals" throughout history that have justified state violence in defence of the status quo.

For example, alot of the criticism on the Iraq war from the mainstream left is that it was incompetently handled e.g. no planning, exit strategy, too few troops, etc. In other words, the underlying issue about whether the invasion was criminal or not is ignored - only the issue about how efficiently it was carried out is allowed to be discussed.

It's good consciousness-raising. Chomsky is asking you to be a Martian and look at affairs as an objective observer. Which governments are responsible for much of the violence on the planet over the last generation or two?

Certainly the Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, and despotic African and Middle Eastern regimes, but also many direct and indirect actions from the USA & Israel as well. Who are the chief weapons exporters? USA, Russia, China, UK, etc.

It's an either / or scenario i.e. either the west is responsible OR the commies / terrorists, etc, but both. And all parties are responsible for the atrocities that they commit.

If all participants are judged by the same standards, then that will lead to some uncomfortable conclusions about governments are we elect and re-elect.

316. Fox News Discussion on 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #85780 by Rtambree on November 7, 2007 at 5:09 am

You can't watch this stuff seriously, otherwise you'd go mad.

Oh no, someone trashed our invisible friend, and who's going to protect the children now?!

317. Gorilla slaughter sparks campaign

Comment #85596 by Rtambree on November 6, 2007 at 10:52 am

In terms of the scale of atrocities, what's going on in the Congo now is even worse than Dafur. Thousands of women are getting gang-raped, many fatally, and the bonobo population is being threated as well.

It's one catastrophy after another in Africa - for well over a century now: Leopold II, the Catholic Church, Rwanda, famines, malaria, poaching, etc.

318. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84937 by Rtambree on November 4, 2007 at 9:52 am

Yep, not only strawmen, but meaningless empty statements, vague pronouncements, non sequiturs, a myriad of logical fallacies, references to obscure theologians, and repeating age-old points already pre-empted and addressed in the books of Dawkins et al.

It's simple. Show me the evidence!?!

319. AAI 07

Comment #84712 by Rtambree on November 3, 2007 at 9:45 am

645. Comment #84698 by Logicel on November 3, 2007 at 8:22 am

>Rtambree, here are some links pertaining to my yacht tax comment

Thanks for the links. I see this specific example was from about 1991 - 1993, when the world economy was in a bit of a downturn anyway. The boom times were in the late 1980s and second half of 1990s.

Obviously, I agree, taxes have to be implemented at the right level, at the right industry, at the right time in economic cycles and closely monitored and be changed if counterproductive. The issue of taxing income or consumption is worth debating too e.g. should the tax generated from large cars be redirected to subsidising small cars?

Here in London, the city traffic congestion charge was extended westwards to the rich western areas, and the amount of traffic went up again (as those in the zone are exempt). So, you're right, tax can have all sorts of unintended consequences which can't be predicted from any ideological text.

320. AAI 07

Comment #84677 by Rtambree on November 3, 2007 at 7:12 am

Here's a recent poll... (looks like there's a still a little way to go, and of course it depends on how questions are framed)

"(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - More adults in the United States are questioning their national defence budget, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. 43 per cent of respondents think the U.S. spends too much on military purposes, up nine points in a year.

Conversely, 20 per cent of respondents say the country invests too little in national defence, while 35 per cent think it spends the right amount.

On Feb. 5, U.S. president George W. Bush presented the federal budget for the 2008 fiscal year. The spending plan seeks $624.6 billion U.S. for defence, including $141.7 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.

On Mar. 1, U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates urged lawmakers to approve Bush's $93.4 billion U.S. request for Pentagon spending, saying, "If these additional funds are delayed, the military will be forced to engage in costly and counterproductive reprogramming actions starting this spring, in April, to make up the shortfall. Timely enactment of this supplemental request is critical to ensuring our troops in the field have the resources they need."

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14916

321. AAI 07

Comment #84668 by Rtambree on November 3, 2007 at 7:00 am

625. Comment #84663 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

>One of the most common complaints about representative government, is that it isn't "close enough to the people".

Another way to close the gap between the population and its representatives is to sever the link with undemocratic forces which tug in the other direction i.e. political donators, lobbyists, campaign contributors, etc.

This would be very simple to do: publically funded elections (small taxpayer cost, HUGE gain in democracry), and lobbyists have to get in line to see their local member, just like any other action group or environmental organisation.

322. AAI 07

Comment #84666 by Rtambree on November 3, 2007 at 6:53 am

>I think obscene display of wealth has always been frowned upon to some degree. The "greed is good" gospel and the accompanied fashion of flaunting one's wealth seems to have peaked in the 1980's and the trend appears to be reversing ever since.

Have you been to Bond Street London or Madison Avenue New York or Rodeo Drive LA recently? Have a look at Country Life magazine - real estate prices for luxury houses are at record levels (in real inflation adjusted dollars).

The ratio of CEO salaries to average workers' salaries has ballooned over the last few decades. Maybe it should be a legislated fixed multiple, so that if CEOs wanted to give themselves a pay rise, they have to grant it to their workers as well.

Political and economic commentators often talk about the new "Gilded Age" we're going through now.

323. AAI 07

Comment #84662 by Rtambree on November 3, 2007 at 6:42 am

Logicel - what is this yacht law and business that went bust? Do you have a source? Date? Legislation? Business name? Not that I'm doubting what you claim, only to suggest it's very much an exception. Taxes are declining for the rich in the western world (UK, USA, Australia, etc).

The gap between rich and poor has got wider, social mobility is declining or has stalled - and luxury goods are enjoying a boom. Look at art prices: tens and hundreds of millions for paintings. They don't know what to do with the money - other than squander it on status symbols.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e418a41e-7809-11db-be09-0000779e2340.html

http://www.list.co.uk/article/4564-hirst-skull-sold-for-50-million/

324. AAI 07

Comment #84660 by Rtambree on November 3, 2007 at 6:39 am

619. Comment #84656 by Bonzai

>You are always the optimist. :) I think the other way is more likely for the U.S.

I think you'll find most polls conducted in the USA show that Americans are more normal than you give them credit for. They want universal public health care, signing up to the Kyoto protocol, greater UN involvement in the international affairs, more fuel efficient cars, and I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted the trillions of dollars that go into "Defense" redirected to benefit the wider population.

It's a weird phenomenon of USA politics that both the Repubicrats and Democans are way to the right of the general population.

325. AAI 07

Comment #84658 by Rtambree on November 3, 2007 at 6:32 am

Bonzai & Logical:

>"I didn't say that, maybe it was Rtambree but I can't be sure since I don't recall reading that at all.
>I think fur is regarded with disdain not so much because it is a symbol of wealth, but because it is a symbol of cruelty and unnecessary killing just for the sake of vanity, not to mention the bad taste of hanging an animal carcass around one's neck."

Yes, I suggested it, but the point is that tastes change over time. Fur coats and animal heads on the wall are no longer "tasteful". In Europe, owning big SUVs is becoming unfashionable. All I'm speculating on is that obscene displays of wealth while there are hundreds of millions dying from preventable diseases might also be deemed distasteful.

There's nothing wrong with luxury yachts and gold taps per se (e.g. if all the world had Scandinavian standard of living), but presently, while half the world live in appalling conditions, it might be deemed tasteless, analogous to fur and hunting trophies.

326. AAI 07

Comment #84655 by Rtambree on November 3, 2007 at 6:21 am

617. Comment #84653 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

You could go one step further and use citizen voting on the issue of the week.

Everyone gets a Citizen Voters card with a PIN and can either vote at ATM machines or online - on whatever the issue of the moment is. Entirely voluntary. The technology is there (online banking type of security, secret ballots, can only vote once, etc).

Politicians are still needed to decide on the issues, and frame all the options, and draft and implement the legislation but citizens make the actual choices. True democracy.

Can you see it happening? :)

Maybe one day in the distant future, when the zeitgeist has moved on, and they look back on our times in the same way that we look back on the past. After all, it was only 100 years ago that most European countries had powerful monarchies. Only 150 years ago that they USA had slavery and the English wiped out the Tasmanian Aborigines.

327. The truth in religion

Comment #84247 by Rtambree on November 1, 2007 at 2:18 pm

23. Comment #84244 by Diacanu on November 1, 2007 at 1:54 pm

>Scientist theists and ex-atheists are the worst.
>The credulous snuggle right up to the security blanket like a child, that I can understand.
>The scientists/ex-atheists, they made/make a conscious choice "this is what the universe without God looks like, I refuse it, give me the security blanket".

Fully agreed. It's very infantile. There's nothing logical about it. They start with the conclusion they came to from their emotions (some mental illness?), and work backwards to concoct whatever wishy-washy arguments they need to justify it to themselves (and to the public).

I wonder if fMRI or PET scans would reveal anything unusual in the way their brains are organised.

328. AAI 07

Comment #84223 by Rtambree on November 1, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Finland and Sweden don't have vast oil reserves and they're still up there on the HDI rankings. The Finnish education system gets better results for its high school students that most richer western countries.

It's not just about GDP but what you do with it (and how it's distributed).
Or in other words, size matters, but there are other criteria.


>>Sierra Leone, will be like Norway
>wouldn't that be dull

I'm sorry you think it's boring. These people have to cope with HIV, mass gang rapes, maurading child soldiers with AK47s, extreme poverty, lack of fresh water, etc and you think it'd be "dull" for them to be like Norway.

329. AAI 07

Comment #84197 by Rtambree on November 1, 2007 at 12:03 pm

>So, what is your opinion and solution?

It's so simple. Look at what the best countries in the world are achieving and (at least try) to emulate those policies in all the other 170 countries.

One day, hopefully (100 years?), Sierra Leone, will be like Norway.

330. AAI 07

Comment #84191 by Rtambree on November 1, 2007 at 11:59 am

461. Comment #84189 by scooternyc

>You just don't get it. You want a never ending cycle of people being irresponsible and not accountable.

Obviously, you've been held down by having to pay taxes, etc. So please enlighten us - what great achievement in life would you have now accomplised if only you didn't have to pay taxes?

Would you be up to your second Nobel Prize by now? Would you have a shinier car? A larger HDTV?

C'mon - How has your life been made so miserable by being forced to help these stupid irresponsible people that don't know how to use contraceptives?

331. The truth in religion

Comment #84187 by Rtambree on November 1, 2007 at 11:44 am

4. Comment #84182 by jeepyjay on November 1, 2007 at 11:39 am

"Faith is a commitment to a form of motivated belief, differing only from scientific reason in the nature of the subject of that belief and the kind of motivations appropriate to it."

>But unfortunately It's rather to convoluted for me to follow. Can anyone translate it?

Here's an attempt at translation: Faith is like science, except where it's not.

332. AAI 07

Comment #84181 by Rtambree on November 1, 2007 at 11:36 am

458. Comment #84178 by scooternyc

>Or should this be a never-ending subsidized program for stupid in our society that we refuse to hold accountable and pay for their every transgression and mistake?

Yeah, you're right, Scooter. So should we sterilize them or just gas them? And if we gas them, how do we ensure they pay for the gas and are not gassed at public expense?

333. AAI 07

Comment #84177 by Rtambree on November 1, 2007 at 11:27 am

One thing I notice in these debates is that the "so called" liberatarian approach can actually be warped into one that focuses on the society - as 'notsobad' referes to the effectiveness of the system.

Just like the gene is the unit of selection in evolution, the individual should be focus of selection in a political system.

The primary focus shouldn't be "the society" or "the health of the economy", where these abstract intangible entitles have precedence over people's wishes and suffering.

Belief in ideologies (right wing, free market, totalitarian, communist, etc) tend to elevate some system (or "society") over and above the individual.

Notsobad: "I am not scared to admit that I could have given the money to an orphanage or UNICEF or whoever else but did not. I am not scared to admit that I eat and drink some expensive food I don't really need. Some people here undoubtedly buy things they don't really need but still ride their high horse preaching others about compassion and how moral and humane they are. I do a lot of things to help others but I don't need to brag about them (except for one post when directly asked) and don't need to pretend that I am better than others."

That may be true, but those same people may support higher taxes, estate taxes, luxury goods taxes where that money gets channelled into foreign aid, education, health, public housing, etc.

We may not want to give a high percentage of our excess disposable income to the poor if nobody else is, but we'd be certainly more willing to if we knew everybody was doing it, and the revenue wasn't being wasted on the military, corporate agricultural subsidies, etc.

334. AAI 07

Comment #83860 by Rtambree on October 31, 2007 at 1:46 pm

376. Comment #83856 by Diacanu on October 31, 2007 at 1:39 pm
JelloWasabi/Bonzai-

>(Sarcasm)
But lack of empathy gets you lots and lots of MONEY, therefore, pragmatically, it WORKS.
And by WORKS I mean gets you lots and lots of MONEY!!
What are ya, a commie?

Ha ha - who makes it to their deathbed with the most amount of stuff, wins.

335. AAI 07

Comment #83858 by Rtambree on October 31, 2007 at 1:42 pm

374. Comment #83852 by notsobad on October 31

>I don't think the Swedish model can be applied in the US for several reasons. For example, the Swedish population is much more homogeneous than the US.

That's exactly the argument Charlton Heston used at the end of Bowling for Columbine.

In any case, a consequence of unregulated free market capitalism will be an unequal society with massive concentration of wealth - and the lack of homogeneity.

So the argument is circular - using a consequence of USA's policies that promote inequality to justify the non-applicability of policies that promote equality.

336. AAI 07

Comment #83822 by Rtambree on October 31, 2007 at 12:05 pm

362. Comment #83814 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

>Why not? If it can be proven empirically, that higher taxes result in happier, longer lived citizens, less crime and greater social stability, wouldn't that be desireable?

I guess they would say that the freedom and right to reupholster your third Learjet with plush velvet overrides handouts to the undeserving poor and crippled who didn't work hard enough to own even a single Learjet.

337. AAI 07

Comment #83583 by Rtambree on October 30, 2007 at 1:25 pm

293. Comment #83573 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Good points, Brian. Sweden is to right-wingers what Darwin is to theists - an inconvenient truth, and they obviously need to tie themselves into contorted logical pretzels in order to reconcile the evidence with their ideologies.

Here in Europe, atheism is not a dirty word, just like socialism is not a dirty word: e.g. "socialised health care".

338. AAI 07

Comment #83580 by Rtambree on October 30, 2007 at 1:19 pm

In addition to the above comments from Bonzai, once you get past average incomes in western countries, a greater percentage of additional wealth is spent on useless luxuries: brand name clothes, champagne in the swimming pool, shiny cars, status symbols, etc.

Each additional dollar is worth less to you and makes little difference to your quality of life, whereas it makes a massive difference in addressing preventable diseases in the third world. It is this aspect that is immoral, and I'm sure will one day this will be looked down upon in the same that we intuitively despise slavery.

Diacanu: "Or, you guys wanna slap fight over economic theory for 5 years while the christians and muslims laugh at you?"

Actually, this does have a direct bearing on the topic, because countries that have a high standard of living with good economic security tend to shed their religiosity spontaneously, without any concerted organised atheist movements. If you plot all 180-odd countries' standard of living with religiosity, you'll see a nice inverse correlation (with the the USA being the one exception, but one can argue economic security is quite low in the USA relative to other western countries).

There might be a delusion implicit within "The God Delusion" - that you can use rationality to persuade theists to discard their beliefs.

Is there any evidence after all the thousands of entries between theists and atheists on these websites, that any of them have changed their minds?

339. AAI 07

Comment #83558 by Rtambree on October 30, 2007 at 12:21 pm

281. Comment #83551 by Colonel Dan

>A system that pays parents for poor children only creates more poor children

What an ignorant thing to say. African countries that have no social security have very large families sizes and are very poor, while rich countries that have strong social security have small family sizes with very few poor.

The evidence is the exact opposite to what you say, but don't let facts stand in the way of your foaming at the mouth ideology.

340. AAI 07

Comment #83213 by Rtambree on October 29, 2007 at 9:32 am

RE: Agricultural subsidies by the USA and Europe.

Agreed. They pervert the market, they help multinational agribusiness corporations at the expense of third world farmers.

Reduction (or abolition) of subsidies has been proposed many times by activists, but the political donations by agribusiness and lobbyists are too influential. You're right - it's blatant hypocrisy caused by blatant corruption.

I would prohibit all political donations by corporations (who, afterall, don't even have a vote). You'd get an instant increase in democracy, to the benefit of people, but unfortunately all mainstream political parties support corporate donations (bribes by any other terminology).

341. AAI 07

Comment #83210 by Rtambree on October 29, 2007 at 9:26 am

163. Comment #83207 by notsobad

That's a very short term outlook. Do most people generally want to lead miserable lives?

Don't crime rates overwhelmingly correlate with poverty? Isn't it coincidence that the USA is one of the most unequal societies AND has the highest prison population?

Aren't crime rates lower in egalitarian countries than in countries with extreme disparity between rich and poor?

I think most crime is socio-economic. That is, if you swap all the rich kids with the poor kids at birth, it'll be the kids growing up in poor environments that will commit more crime (ignoring the phenomena of under-reported white collar corporate crime).

Yes, there will be some residual crime that is genetic (self-destructive depression, psychopathy) and should be treated as a mental illness, not by short term punitive policies that continue the cycle. The leftwing positions seeks to address the underlying cause, not the symptom.

342. AAI 07

Comment #83205 by Rtambree on October 29, 2007 at 9:14 am

159. Comment #83196 by notsobad

>And while not everybody may have an equal opportunity to end up rich and successful 9and not everybody wants to in the first place), almost everybody has the opportunity to achieve a relatively high standard of living, which is what we are talking about here.

Not globally. There are still hundreds of millions of Africa and Asia that don't have the opportunities to attain any decent standard of living.

The zeitgeist of morality will continue to change. In no way have we reached the final stage of enlightenment yet. Just as slavery, racism, and the denial of the vote to women are unacceptable today in western countries, despite being the norm for thousands of years, there will come a time when practices that we take for granted today are deemed unacceptable in the future. My suspicion is that extreme wealth (multiple mansions, private jets, gold bathtaps, etc) simultaneous to millions dying from preventable diseases, will no longer be accepted in the future. Extreme disparity will one day be seen as unjust as slavery or divine monarchy does to us now.

343. AAI 07

Comment #83194 by Rtambree on October 29, 2007 at 8:36 am

RE: Being Born Equal

The genetic recombination during meiosis is the ultimate source of inequality, that predates any political ideology. Some people are born intelligent and good looking, others aren't. Where you end up on the bell curve at birth is no fault or merit of your own. No, it's not fair.

However various political and economic systems can then exacerbate these initial starting differences. If genetic variation among our 24,000 genes is about 1-2%, why is it that 90% of the wealth gets concentrated in the top 5% of the population?

Inheritance seems to be the biggest obstacle to an egalitarian society. Right-wingers that hate social security because it's not based on merit, can't reconcile this stance on welfare with their desire to bequeath vast fortunes to their undeserving children, sending them to Ivy League elite institutions and so on.

Often, inheritance can completely pervert merit, such as when idiot children of the wealthy receive extreme wealth.

Right wingers that love reward-for-merit and personal responsibility and also hate welfare, should be all in favour of estate taxes. After all, the people that accumulate wealth don't pay estate taxes.

Concentrating the nation's wealth in a small minority of people is not fostering opportunity, but denying opportunity to the majority that have to attend poorly funded schools, die from lack of adequate health care, etc. The freedom for millionaires to become billionaires also implies the denying of freedom of the majority of the world's population to have access to essential services.

The evidence seems to be that the Scandinavian countries have a higher overall standard of living compared with the USA, so that wealth distribution more approximiately reflects the initial starting differences at birth, rather than exacerbating them.

Evidence, not political ideology.

344. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82129 by Rtambree on October 25, 2007 at 5:59 pm

There's more credibility to the argument "you can't be moral WITH God" - just look at the 1,000 years when the Christian church was in totally charge: tortue, war, executions, crusades, thoughtcrime, repression, corruption, regression. Look at the giant organised pedophile ring that is the Catholic church. Look at all the theocracies in the world today and compare them to the secular scandinavian countries that have the highest living standards in the world across a wide range of social indices.

345. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #82125 by Rtambree on October 25, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Other way around - it is the Abrahamic religions that are so disgusted with themselves, their lives, the species, and the cosmos, that the only way they can make it bearable is to invent a whole layer of myth.

The world isn't good enough on its own. They revile it. It is they who don't believe that life is worth living.

How often, when atheists debate theists, the conversation ends with "well if you're right and there is no God, we might as well just kill ourselves"? This reveals an underlying nihilism in theists.

346. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #82115 by Rtambree on October 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Just take a look at the Hubble Ultra Deep Field with its thousand of distant galaxies and then ask yourself, "Does He care about my sex life?"

347. Science owes its origins to Christianity or Religion

Comment #81965 by Rtambree on October 25, 2007 at 1:04 pm

The statement is entirely false. When Christianity was strongest in Europe, enquiry into the natural world was at its weakest. Christianity was one big 2,000 year interruption between the Greek awakening and the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It's referred to the Dark Ages for a reason - very little happened in the arts, humanities, sciences and philosophy. In fact, in many areas, Europe regressed under totalitarian Christianity.

Islam circa 1,000AD did more for science than Christianity e.g. School of Baghdad, translation of Aristotle, etc.

It was precisely when Christianity began to wane, that scientific enquiry could flourish.

The explanatory power of the scientific method and the real world results (e.g. increasing longevity and reduced suffering from diseases) meant that scientists increasingly were deists, agnostics and atheists; always more sceptical than the population as a whole.

348. The US is a Christian Nation

Comment #81961 by Rtambree on October 25, 2007 at 12:56 pm

There's already too many Abrahamic nations on Earth as it is... and look at their pathetic standard of livings, violence and ignorance.

349. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #81877 by Rtambree on October 25, 2007 at 10:33 am

OK then, define your God (with justification as to why THAT God and not some other God) and I'll criticise Him. And may He strike me down, right here, right now, if I speak falsely.

350. I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Comment #81823 by Rtambree on October 25, 2007 at 8:41 am

Each and every human that ever lived is born an atheist.