Comments by Bonzai

301. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #282862 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 8:43 pm

cerebate

However lets say science progresses to the point that as soon as we can detect that there is a pregnancy , we are also able to keep the foetus alive externally/artificially

Just alive or continue to develop?

If the former you can keep your nose cell alive in a Petri dish. Should nose scratching be banned?

If you mean you can find a way so that the fetus can continue to develop to such a point that it can live and grow on its own, that would imply that the fetus couldn't live and grow when it is removed from the womb. So your new scenario doesn't affect the original argument about the non viability of the early fetus.

302. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #282849 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Goldy

These are only about a tiny number of people but the tone appears to blame the thousands...no, millions of others who just want to live like their neighbours and for whom their religion is what they do at home.

I think that is because the politicians appear to listen to the vocal and strident minority. They charge "racism" and "Islamophobia" whenever they try to get what they want, the blackmail often works.

Moreover, while these people appoint themselves "community leaders", governments appear to buy it.

There may be something more going on. I think there is a certain faction of the "multi-culturalists", so called "liberals" who are eager to use the Islamists as a way to guilt trip "Western civilization" in general. They would pick up anything that they can use to bash "Western" ideals. These are mostly educated, secular middle class white people with an excess of collective white guilt and an exaggerate sense of individual self rightousness. These compulsive masochists would cheer and abide any alleged "viticm" of the West, the Islamists happen to be the favourite of the month.

303. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #282830 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:39 pm

cerebate

I don't see how you can make a case for banning abortion within reasonable time if you would allow for abortion in case of rape.

Either the fetus is a person or it is not.

If it is a person, then abortion is still murder even if pregnancy is the result of rape. It is not the fetus' fault so why should it be given the death sentence?

If it is not a person then what is the problem and what are we even debating about?

Does the right to choice always trump everything else?

What is "everything else"? If it is to satisfy some people's morbid desire to teach a lession to the "promiscuous dumb" vs women's control over their bodies, then yes, choice trumps everything else.

304. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #282818 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Goldy

I noticed in the Star ref that many of the more exasperated commentors were self confessed Muslims

Yes, I notice that. It has always been my point that the PC power that be is more guilty of enabling the radicals than the everyday Muslims.
"Religious freedom" is a neutral thing, it just mean you can practice your religion within the law without persecution. It doesn't mandate the workplace and society to go out of its way to cater to believers. But the secular elite seems to think otherwise. Lately most of the most outlandish demands seem to be made by conversative Muslims who appear to want to see how far they can push the state around and most time the PC left side with the Islamists.

305. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #282808 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:00 pm

If "backlash" means more media exposure of what goes on in the mosques and speaking out against the PC madness of unprincipled accomodations of Islam I am all for it. It is about time.

This even from our most PC paper

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/535278

306. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282600 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Titania,

Haven't found anything suitable for an avatar and I am too lazy to search now. I will find something during the holiday. :)

307. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282597 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Goldy

And Cixi

Cixi was nothing, she presided over a weak, crumbling, corrupt and moribound regime.

But do you know her?

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

308. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282588 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 12:35 pm

r2s

Speaking of women, I always find this thought astonishing.

The US has not had a woman president whereas an Islamic state like Pakistan has had a female PM.

Actually I don't.

Some very sexist societies also have another feature, namely a quasi feudalistic government structure whrere access to power is often through informal, unofficial channels. While being a woman worked against Benazir Bhutto in gaining power through the official channel, her being the heir of the Bhutto dynasty was a huge advantage that more than made up for her handicap.

That happened often in Chinese history. While people like eunuchs and women traditionally had low social status, but somehow our history was full of powerful eunuchs and queens.

The reason, I think, is that while the official channel to power was closed to them, there was a big unofficial channel through which they could access power, namely the Emperors who exercised power in an absolute but non transparent way.

So those who had preferential access to the Emperor, such as his favourite servants (the eunuchs) and his beloved concubines, would have plenty of opportunities to gain real power, even ending up in positions vastly more powerful than those who accessed power through the normal, open channel of offical minsterial posts.

309. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282553 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 11:57 am

Titania

Sorry, no avatar just yet. Have to wait a while. :)

310. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282552 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 11:56 am

MBC Morgan

Does anyone mind if I again ask DP at this time to please define the social safety net that he claimed to support?

He answered it: parents.

311. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282543 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 11:51 am

The U.S. is going downhill because too many people think like DP.

In the old days of hunters and gatherers when resources were scarce such selfish, anti-social types would be banished because their presence threatened the survival of the group.

312. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282536 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 11:40 am

Steve

You wouldn't know which is "simpler" until you try to work out the details. Often "simple" ideas
just don't work, once you put in enough work to make it looks workable it doesn't look so "simple" anymore because you may need other ad hoc assumptions along the way.

313. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #282529 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 11:29 am

Maybe he was actually in love with his flatmate and he killed the girl because of jealousy.

314. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282528 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 11:27 am

r2s

This seems to me the other way round i.e we start with a model of a multiverse and see if our reality can fit into it.

Well string theory doesn't start with multiverse. But in a sense you are right. Many great achievements in theoretical physics started from grand ideas and abstractions like symmetry rather just trying to fit data.

Einstein worked out general relativity with no data. The data caught up with him later. GR is a beautiful "skyhook". So Dennett is wrong. Science is not just biology.

315. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #282520 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 10:55 am

Al,

I think communists are atheists, no?

He may have a problem with "provocative" female sexuality and Polish Catholics because he is a social conservative and a cultural chauvinist.

EDIT: Many older immigrants want their children to marry "their own kind" and complain about the sexual openness of the West. It has nothing to do with religion per se.

316. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #282515 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 10:42 am

The religion of peace strikes again. What do you do if your muslim roomate dates a British girl' The only reasonable thing, slit the girl's throat.

From your link

The court heard that Jabari grew up in Iraq and was conscripted to the Iraqi army but then deserted. He became involved with the Communist party and later helped opponents of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime flee to Syria.

It doesn't seem like the guy is a Muslim. Also, she was strangled.

317. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282501 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:56 am

eppeeist

I did invert it during editing.

318. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282494 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:36 am

I think "falsifiability" is actually a more subtle concept than it is commonly understood.

For example is the claim that magentic monopoles don't exist falsifiable or not? "In principle" it is but that would involve an exhaustive search in the universe. So, if you find one, you can fasify the statement that magnetic monopoles don't exist, but if you don't, you can't say they don't exist. You may not have searched hard enough.

So this is like the difference between recursive set and recursive enumerable sets. Given a set A and an object a, the statement " a belongs to A" is decidable only if you can list both the elements of A and the complement of A. If you can only list A, you may or may not be able to decide if the statement " a belongs to A" is true in finite time.

The notion of falsiafiability may need refinement.

319. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282487 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:23 am

Mitchell

My theory of why I'm so damn great? I'm still working on it, sometimes it seems just inexplicable.

Someone has done it.

Nietzsche's "autobiography" "Ecce Homo" "actually have chapters with titles like "Why am I so great?".

If I remember correctly, he either wrote it in a nut house or shortly before he got locked up. :)

320. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282482 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:19 am

To get up to speed on cosmology and physics I highly recommend Roger Penrose's monsterous "the road to reality" if you are able to invest the time and effort.

It is not an easy read because he doesn't cut corners, he actually tries to sketch the mathematical machinary begining with just the Pythagoras theorem. He claims the book is self contained but I suspect people without at least two years of university level math would need a tutor to get the most out of it. He also claims that you can skip the math and read only the words, but IMO if you do that you lose most of the plot.

One mild complaint is that Penrose is not the best writer around, his prose sometimes are clumsy and confusing, he is no Dawkins when it comes to literary style. So knowing the math may help to understand what he actually tries to say.

P.S. The book actually contains a lot of exercises, many of them aren't easy! This is supposed to be a pop science book!

321. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282444 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 8:04 am

MaxD

He says just the forum. Not the FCOS. :)

322. 'Child-witches' of Nigeria seek refuge

Comment #282439 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:58 am

Hungarianelephant

How does your [flying goose] post support the argument that Africa is backward as a sole result of slave trading and colonialism'

Instead of answering the question I just want to make an observation about the way that the question is often framed.

There seems to be a hidden assumption that slave trading and colonialism were somehow more "civilized" and "progressive" comparing to the backwardness of Africa.I think barbarism conducted with high technology is still barbarism, except a lot more deadly and we had elaborate systems of philosophy and theology to rationalize it.

Why do you think Africa is backward, btw?

323. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282432 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:50 am

197. Comment #282427 by Quetzalcoatl

Did Richard Morgan have something to do with the implosion?

324. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282425 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:46 am

Dianelos doesn't have a hypothesis.

His posts are just painfully verbose ways of saying "Since science doesn't explain X Y Z, it proves the impotence of "naturalism", therefore Jesus is God. Q.E.D."

325. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282417 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:42 am

That wouldn't rhyme anymore. :) I maybe dyslexic :)

326. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282415 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:41 am

Quetzalcoatl

C.O.D = Compulsive Obesssive Disorder

327. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #282410 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:37 am

God has C.O.D., therefore the universe obeys rules.

Dianelos should have thought of that. It "explains" everything that "naturalism" can explain and, as a bonus, why you should believe in Jesus.

328. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282400 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 7:26 am

There is no such thing as a self-made man.

Jesus was self made if you believe in the Bible, he even called himself "father".

329. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #282391 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 6:54 am

Brian English

"Kant" is just a four letter word.

330. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282252 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 10:43 pm

cerebate

How many wives?

331. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282248 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 10:41 pm

cerebate

But it does make fine distinctions in almost all the areas. Why do you have various degrees of murder?

Hello? Are you saying that everytime someone applies for a marriage licence you will subject him/her to the equivalence of a murder trial?

How much money and time should the state spend on the investigations and appeals?

Since you are probably a sane person the only conclusion I can reach is that you must be a lawyer who is seeing a lucrative business opportunity. :)

332. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282236 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 10:24 pm

cerebate

So you are saying that people who believe in the traditional marriage of the man is the master of the house sort of marriages should have their marriages revoked in an ideal scenario(even if the adult spouse wants it that way)?

That's why the law doesn't say it recognizes "traditional marriage" as a category. But something broad like monogamy.

The law doesn't and can't make fine distinctions. It recognizes monogamous relationship. some may be unequal but this is not a general pattern in modern monogamous marriage.

.

333. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282231 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 10:19 pm

cerebate

But could we make up a law which specified what an equal polygamous relationship is? I currently think the answer to that is yes.

How? So everytime a group of polygamists apply for a marriage licence you will do a background check and see if they match all the criteria?

334. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282227 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 10:15 pm

righton

Redistribution of Sex? I wonder what DP thinks about that?

You beat me to it. I was thinking of the socialist's argument against polygamy. We shouldn't let some people hording more than their fair share so that others would be left with nothing :)

335. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282222 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 10:09 pm

So hypothetically if some independent study determines that 99% of gay marriages are abusive, then you'd want gay marriages banned?

That's why the state should recognize same sex marriage in general but not create a category for master-slave relationships.

EDIT: 99% of same sex relationship is not abusive but 99% of polygamy is unequal and patriarchal.

336. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282218 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 10:00 pm

cerebate

Let's assume that there were say half a dozen countries run democratically by atheists with a atheist population majority. Assume also that these countries have the highest crime/rape/murder rates in the world.
Would this be an argument in favor of the In general Atheist's don't have morals?

Legislations do not work on hypotheticals like that. If 99% of polygamy in practice are based on gender inequality, giving polygamy recognition would be in fact to recognize gender inequality.

The law has to address the practical, not whether polygamy might be a good idea in the abstract. That is a philosophical debate.

337. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282210 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 9:46 pm

ceberate

And I agree that all current implementations of polygamous relationships aren't 'equal' but thats not an argument against polygamy in general

"In general" means the way it in general exists in the real world.

I am sure you can think of various hypothetical senarios but you would have to bring in a lot of if, then and buts to argue that a many to one relationship would be "in general" equal even theoretically.

338. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282208 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 9:38 pm

cerebate

Why is marriage an equal partnership? (and the implied what give you the right to define it as an equal relationship , when others may define it as between a man and a woman).

"Marriage" can be anything that suits your fancy and doesn't break the law. But the state is not obliged to recognize all kinds of marriage. Equality is a sound principle for the secular state, whereas, there is no secular reason why marriage has to be between a man and a woman except for producing children, but then having children cannot be a precondition to recognize heterosexual marriage unless we define it in such a way that only those who already have children may apply.

And even if we assume that marriage is an equal partnership what does the 'equal' mean? It cant be a mathematical definition of equal, so in what sense does the equal apply?

I never said it is mathematically precise and I gave examples when monogamous relationships are not equal. But polygamy amounts to institutionalized gender inequality whenever it is practised (there may be exceptions but I am talking about "in general")

339. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282202 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Secondsoprano

Bonzai, I thought the bible was very clear on this point.

The bible is also clear on the point about stonning people to death for working on the Sabbath. Does it follow that Christians do that?

340. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282186 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 8:23 pm

secondsoprano

Aren't all christians supposed to believe that the husband is the head of the family, and the wife should submit to his authority?

All? The answer is no.

341. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282185 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 8:21 pm

cerebate

What is your definition of equal?
Why is marriage based on an equal partnership? isn't that an assumption too (which muslims and mormons and hindus do not make)?

So it follows from my argument that the state doesn't have to recognize mormon, hindu and muslim polygamous marriage. So what is your point?

342. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282178 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 7:50 pm

I think people should be allowed in any relationship involving consenting adults and I think this is pretty much the case already. You won't get hauled off to jail if you want to have regular threesome provided you can work it out with your partners. The law doesn't care.

However, it doesn't follow that the state should formally recognize all sexual arrangements involving consenting adults.

One can make the case to recognize monogamous relationship (gay or straight)because theoretically it is based on equal partnership. Now in practise it may not be the case, for example there is probably vast inequality of power when a rich old guy marries a young trophy wife, but the law is too blunt an instrument to make all the fine distinctions. One can only speak of the general case.

On the other hand, polygamous relationship in general is not based on equal partnership. It typically exists in very patriarchal settings (again there may be exceptions but I am speaking in general) Therefore, it can be argued that it should not be formally recognized and honoured in a society that subscribes to the principle of equality.

I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if there is a good argument. I am simply pointing out there are secular arguments to discriminate against polygamy by withholding formal recognition.

343. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282177 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Goldy

If a man can afford many wives or they are willing to pool resources to live together, fine. If a woman can afford more than one man or they are willing to pool resources, who am I to stand in their way' If a person wants to be with his closest kith and kin, that's OK by me - though they should consider the consequences should they wish to have children.
I personally am more than happy with one woman. And I have daughters - last thing I need in my life is more women!

What about people claiming benefits and social assistance for multiple spouses?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/08/4834833-sun.html

344. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #282123 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Brian

I reckon it's a bit harsh to paint Chamberlain as a looser because he tried to avoid war, or at least delay until Germany went bankrupt (a possibility at the time, stopped only by Germany raping surrounding countries and Russian aid I believe).....

I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that Chamberlain was trying to play Hitler against Stalin. It would have been a smart strategy. The Hitler-Stalin non agression pact was perhaps a wild, unexpected move for all experienced political observers at the time.

345. Obama will move to veto Bush laws

Comment #282056 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 2:02 pm

The men in dress are losing no time.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/534816

346. Islamic radicals make mockery of hate laws

Comment #282047 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Recently a local girl was strangled by her father for refusing to wear a headscarf. A local magazine published a story on it and called the murder the first "honour killing" in Toronto.

As expected, the local "Muslim community",--or rather self appointed representatives,-- is outraged.

The loonie left and so called "anti-racist -femists" typically close rank with the Islamists and cry "Islamophomia" and "racism" as if the atrocities and culturally mandated oppression would be washed away if they scream those pc catch phrases loud enough.

http://rabble.ca/babble/anti-racism-news-and-initiatives/toronto-lifes-misrepresentation-aqsa-parvezs-murder-action

These people should be ashamed to call themselves leftists and feminists. People who proudly wore these labels used to stand for universalism and human rights, now these descriptions have turned into parodies.

347. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281869 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 1:11 am

Brian

But the correct use of similar arguments is important in proving things in say, graph theory.

348. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281868 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 1:08 am

The point is to show that careless use of induction may lead to absurdity. This is a good example IMO. It is more conceptual than the usual things you find in highschool text books, which mostly consists of proving some formulae by induction. Those exercises are pretty stupid because there are almost always better and more transperant ways to prove them than by induction.

349. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281865 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 12:58 am

Brian,

Let's try this. This is exactly the same argument, though the notation is a bit different.

Let P(n) be the statement (actually it is a formula in case Mphil is lurking)" any herd of n horses consists of horses of the same colour"

So you want to show that "for all n (P(n))" . That is " Any herd of horses consists of horses of the same colour" which in turn is the same as " All horses have the same colour"

1)P(1) trivial

2)For any n, P(n)==> P(nplus1)

Consider a herd of nplus1 horses.

Label them 1, 2,.. n plus 1

Break them up into two subgroups. Group A consists of horses number 1 to n. Group B consists of horses number 2 to nplus 1.

Now group A has n horses, so by the induction hypothesis all of them have the same colour.

For the same reason group B consists of horses with the same colour.

Now horse number 2 belongs to both group A and group B. so all horses in both groups have the same colour as horse number2, so all of them must have the same colour. So our herd of n plus 1 horses have the the same colour.

(This is the error, since the argument doesn't work if n = 1, that is P(1) does not imply P(2))

So from 1) and 2), " Any herd of horses consists of horses of the same colour" by induction.

From this it follows that " All horses have the same colour"

Hope that's clear.

350. What is the role of free will to an atheist?

Comment #281849 by Bonzai on November 11, 2008 at 12:28 am

Brian,

Let's be careful with the notations here.

Instead of inferring that the proposition is true for n plus 1 from its truth for n, he tried to prove that the proposition is true for n - 1 would imply that it is true for n.

It is the same thing except that n = 2,3.... (so that n-1 = 1,2,3...) This may be a source of confusion for the novice.

Instead of thinking in terms of n and n-1 and n plus 1, try to think in terms of pictures.

Imagine you have a set of objects (countably infinite many) that you can arrange on a striaght line from left to right so that the following two properties are satisfied:

1) There is a first (left most) object.

2) Each object is followed by a "next" object.

So you have a "chain" that has a first "node" and every node is followed by a next one.

For examples:

The natural numbers in their natural ordering:
0, 1, 2, 3...

The positive integers in their natural ordering: 1, 2, 3..

The negative integers ordering in reverse:
-1, -2,...

All integers ordered as follows:

0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3,..

(But the set of integers arranged in their natural order does not have property 1) because there is no smallest integer.

The set of rational numbers between 0 and 1 (including 0 and 1) does not have property 2) because, if you pick rational numbers x and y between 0 and 1 their average is a rational number between x and y (hence between 0 and 1), hence there is no "next" number.)

So the things we are talking about can be quite general.

Now suppose you want to prove that all objects in your set have certain property, let's call it P.

To prove it using induction you need to demonstrate two things.

1) the first object has property P (the base case)

2) If any object in the chain has property P, the next object also has property P. (the induction step)

The induction step basically says that if any object in the chain has property P, it "propagates" down the chain.

But this is a conditional (a "if then" statement) so you don't really know if P holds for any object at all, all you know is that if P holds for one object x, it propagates to all objects to the right of x. That's why we need to seperately establish the base case in order to prove that indeed property P is shared by the whole chain.

In Kunth's example, the objects are the number of cows, so they are positive integers, 1, 2, 3.. The property P(n) is "any herd of n cows consists of cows of the same colour".