> Lesley Weston wrote: >> in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at >> pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>>>> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a >>>> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or >>>> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good >>>> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
>> I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard >> Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it >> odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism. Surely the rational >> stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't >> try to force their beliefs onto other people? Yet RD seems to getting all >> upset because he's encountering Christians and presumably people of other >> religions - as upset as a fundamentalist would be on encountering atheists - >> and he seems to be as anxious to convert religionists to atheism as >> fundamentalists are to convert atheists (and the "wrong" religionists) to >> their own faith. V. peculiar.
> I liked the description of Dawkins as "Atheism's answer to the Jehovah's > Witnesses". I am certainly an atheist, but I find Dawkins deeply > embarrassing. Even if you think you are right, you don't have to be so > rude about it.
I'm glad I'm not the only one! Not that I would even describe myself as an atheist - IMO the whole issue is irrelevant, though useful as a source of entertaining discussions.
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, changing spelling and spacing as required.
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:55:11 GMT, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at >> pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>>>> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a >>>> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or >>>> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good >>>> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
>> I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard >> Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it >> odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism. Surely the rational >> stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't >> try to force their beliefs onto other people? Yet RD seems to getting all >> upset because he's encountering Christians and presumably people of other >> religions - as upset as a fundamentalist would be on encountering atheists - >> and he seems to be as anxious to convert religionists to atheism as >> fundamentalists are to convert atheists (and the "wrong" religionists) to >> their own faith. V. peculiar.
> From a particular perspective, religion is a very frightening thing. For a > start, most people who claim to be religious haven't thought very much > about it, or indeed made a conscious decision to believe in their God(s).
> As Betrand Russell said: "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, > they do so."
> The implications of millions of people acting in what are, from an > objective point of view, very strange ways are scary. What does that imply > about the rest of their actions? Or all their decisions? And these people > can vote. In fact, a lot of the people they're voting for think (or not) > exactly the same way. And they have power.
> And the ones who have made conscious choices - if you're starting from the > perspective that science and rationality is quite obviously the only > reasonable way to think about things, then to have otherwise rational > people make these bizarre choices is deeply worrying: What kind of humans > are we sharing the Earth with? If they believe in these things, what kind > of irrational things will they do? How can we ever trust them to behave > predictably?
I get scared for much the same reasons when I'm with people who are drunk - I don't drink myself because I don't like the taste. But drunks are likely to do unpleasant things so it's rational to be scared of them, while religious people are likely to behave much the same as other people do, except in rare cases. I don't lament that people will insist on drinking, nor do I campaign for prohibition; I just avoid drunks as far as possible while not bothering about people who drink sensibly.
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, changing spelling and spacing as required.
The time: 27 Oct 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The speaker: Alec Cawley <a...@spamspam.co.uk>
> I liked the description of Dawkins as "Atheism's answer to > the Jehovah's Witnesses". I am certainly an atheist, but I > find Dawkins deeply embarrassing. Even if you think you are > right, you don't have to be so rude about it.
I remember a TV interview with Dawkins many, many years ago[1] in which he was asked leading questions about religion, and defused them with the "scientific-method" response, which I would paraphrase as "I don't believe God exists; that's not the same thing as believing God doesn't exist".
I was impressed with this answer, and amused/irritated by the earnest-but-dozy interviewer who didn't "get it", and plodded on with questions based on the assumption that he *was* saying he believed God didn't exist.
I am charitably assuming he's changed his mind since then, and the reply that impressed me so much wasn't a flat-out lie...
[1]Probably about 95-96, because I'd read his books, but I hadn't gone to Uni...
-- Dave Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/ "The need to compile lists is a personality disorder, as is the need to assert the superiority of some things over other things." -Jeremy Hardy
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:52:22 +0100, James Mitchelhill > <ja...@disorderfeed.net> wrote:
>> And if you believe that the only way to behave sensibly is to think things >> through using logic and evidence and that religion is nothing but >> irrational superstition, then you come to the conclusion that the whole >> world is screwed up, that you're sharing it with primitive fools who are >> obviously leading us towards subjugation, destruction and death. Being sane >> in a world full of madness is not a comfortable thing.
> That's pretty much my take on it. And no, it's not terribly fun. About the > only way I've managed to keep going is knowing that -
> 1) The world's survived so far, even being run by loonies. Of course, up > until recently those loonies didn't have the capacity to physically wipe > every trace of humanity off the face of the planet.
Sure they did! In terms of whenever and whoever one is talking about. The first European "explorers" to arrive in the Caribbean Islands wiped out the entire indigenous population, partly unintentionally though disease and partly with malice aforethought; there are no Caribs left at all. Later, the indigenous peoples of both the Americas were seriously depleted by smallpox brought by the Europeans. At first this was an accident, but later some Europeans were deliberately spreading it among them. So nuclear weapons might be new, but they're not that much more devastating from the point of view of whoever they don't fall on, and biological weapons aren't even new. Some part of the human race will probably survive whatever happens, and even if it doesn't then the planet will become populated by our successors.
> 2) Even if things do deteriorate, Australia (and Perth specifically) are > very unlikely targets.
Bali?
> Or at least Australia _was_ an unlikely target > until the current Prime Minister started following George Bush around and > flapping his gob about terrorism at every opportunity.
So we should keep quiet and do nothing for fear that the terrorists might notice us? Some Canadians think the same way, others think it might be a good idea to do whatever we can to stop it.
<snip>
> 4) As a very, _very_ rough approximation, people en masse and on average > are fairly willing to be at least minimally nice, helpful and raised to > keep the wheels of society and personal interaction turning. This > contributes a bias towards things working out more often than they don't.
> 5) There's a lot of talent, rational thought and incredible experiences > out there, in amongst the crud. It can be mentally very refreshing to go > find some and wallow in it for a bit. It gives hope.
> 6) I'm not dead yet, dammit.
All of these are good reasons for optimism. Of course, then the question arises as to whether or not optimism is a rational response to the world - perhaps religion might be more so?
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, changing spelling and spacing as required.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:44:10 +0100, Alec Cawley wrote:
> I don't see how you can characterize Terry as a religious writer when he > is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association - an > organization which is a-religious if not positively a-theist. You don't > have to be an atheist to be a member of the BHA but it certainly helps.
Yes thankyou, this has already been explained to me by esmi in an email, but as I didn't know this before, it's nice knowing - at least I won't make the same mistake again.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:49:27 GMT, Lesley Weston wrote: > in article o84pduo13nig$.1ksref8ypfpv1....@40tude.net, James Mitchelhill at > ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote on 27/10/2006 3:52 PM:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:55:11 GMT, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at >>> pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>>>>> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a >>>>> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or >>>>> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good >>>>> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
>>> I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard >>> Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it >>> odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism. Surely the rational >>> stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't >>> try to force their beliefs onto other people? Yet RD seems to getting all >>> upset because he's encountering Christians and presumably people of other >>> religions - as upset as a fundamentalist would be on encountering atheists - >>> and he seems to be as anxious to convert religionists to atheism as >>> fundamentalists are to convert atheists (and the "wrong" religionists) to >>> their own faith. V. peculiar.
>> From a particular perspective, religion is a very frightening thing. For a >> start, most people who claim to be religious haven't thought very much >> about it, or indeed made a conscious decision to believe in their God(s).
>> As Betrand Russell said: "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, >> they do so."
>> The implications of millions of people acting in what are, from an >> objective point of view, very strange ways are scary. What does that imply >> about the rest of their actions? Or all their decisions? And these people >> can vote. In fact, a lot of the people they're voting for think (or not) >> exactly the same way. And they have power.
>> And the ones who have made conscious choices - if you're starting from the >> perspective that science and rationality is quite obviously the only >> reasonable way to think about things, then to have otherwise rational >> people make these bizarre choices is deeply worrying: What kind of humans >> are we sharing the Earth with? If they believe in these things, what kind >> of irrational things will they do? How can we ever trust them to behave >> predictably?
> I get scared for much the same reasons when I'm with people who are drunk - > I don't drink myself because I don't like the taste. But drunks are likely > to do unpleasant things so it's rational to be scared of them, while > religious people are likely to behave much the same as other people do, > except in rare cases. I don't lament that people will insist on drinking, > nor do I campaign for prohibition; I just avoid drunks as far as possible > while not bothering about people who drink sensibly.
Now imagine that the drunks are everywhere and that lots of people think that being drunk is a good and responsible thing. Imagine that your children are being taught by drunks, who want to tell your kids how great alcohol is. Imagine that many politicians are permanently drunk and base their decisions around the core values of alcoholism. Some of the drunks who like whiskey think that the drunks who like beer are crazy, and vice versa. A small minority of drunks seem to think that anyone who doesn't drink like they do should be killed.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:14:50 +0800, SteveD wrote: >>Well I think that the mystery character turned out to be Moist Von Lipwig, >>with MM, but seriously, I've been waiting long enough for the next >>Rincewind novel - how long does a girl have to wait.
> Given the amount of popular characters readers want to see more of, there > really needs to be about six or twelve Terrys writing continuously.
I'm pretty sure he said he was thinking of doing a Rincwind novel soon. I can't actually remember the thread exactly, but I got very angry with him over a big misunderstanding I had with him over a "SOD the fans" little joke he made at an interview, which I took pretty serious at the time about Rincewind fans.
He wrote back and explained it was just a little joke, and also added he was doing another Rincewind novel - but that was ages ago, and I'm still waiting for it!!
<brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >in article 7ma5k25p3r163tj2fnhekbt508ck8ut...@4ax.com, SteveD at >use...@vo.id.au wrote on 27/10/2006 6:13 PM: >> Or at least Australia _was_ an unlikely target >> until the current Prime Minister started following George Bush around and >> flapping his gob about terrorism at every opportunity.
>So we should keep quiet and do nothing for fear that the terrorists might >notice us? Some Canadians think the same way, others think it might be a >good idea to do whatever we can to stop it.
Not out of fear. However, if there's a small group of loonies who have been known to cause trouble and who are stinging a larger loony who is flailing all around and causing massive unfocused destruction in response, is it really a smart thing to step up and say to either party "Hey, look over here, why don't you shoot at us too while you're at it!"?
Not to mention that in terms of population, military response, economic power and so forth, Australia is *tiny*. Our population is around that of greater New York City, our economic impact perhaps half to a third that.
What, precisely, is the point in seeking out foreign conflicts which have nothing to do with us and then taunting one of the sides? That's like heading out of a shoebox apartment to go find a gang who's been throwing stones at the mansions on the other side of the city, and then pulling faces at them. You get beaten up by the gangs and the mansion owners never even know (or care) that you were there. Meanwhile, the fridge in the shoebox apartment still needs cleaning, and there's a possibility that someone from the gang will take it into their head to follow you home and throw rocks at you too.
Sofia <pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:19:43 +0100, Peter Burlingham wrote: > > > PS Please, please, please, please, after you've finished Making Money, > > > start your next Rincewind book instead of another Tiffany one!
I beg to differ. :o>
> [...] > I think Quinn began this thread saying he was going to write another > Tiffany novel called "I Shall Wear Midnight" - but I have only just bought > Wintersmith, and I haven't even began it yet!
For the first time ever, I have read a discworld book /before/ it was published in paperback! (It was a birthday present.) Read it right away. Great.
> We spoke to Pterry in a thread earlier this year I think, and I was > complaining that he did too much Vimes, and that my favourite character > was Rincewind. [...]
Again, I beg to differ. (The only DW character being more interesting to me than Vimes being Tiffany.)
> Well I think that the mystery character turned out to be Moist Von Lipwig, > with MM, but seriously, I've been waiting long enough for the next > Rincewind novel - how long does a girl have to wait.
For Rincewind?!
> Sofie
Schobi
-- SpamT...@gmx.de is never read I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
SteveD wrote: > On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:07:27 GMT, Lesley Weston > <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >in article 7ma5k25p3r163tj2fnhekbt508ck8ut...@4ax.com, SteveD at > >use...@vo.id.au wrote on 27/10/2006 6:13 PM: > >> Or at least Australia _was_ an unlikely target > >> until the current Prime Minister started following George Bush around and > >> flapping his gob about terrorism at every opportunity.
> >So we should keep quiet and do nothing for fear that the terrorists might > >notice us? Some Canadians think the same way, others think it might be a > >good idea to do whatever we can to stop it.
> Not out of fear. However, if there's a small group of loonies who have > been known to cause trouble and who are stinging a larger loony who is > flailing all around and causing massive unfocused destruction in response, > is it really a smart thing to step up and say to either party "Hey, look > over here, why don't you shoot at us too while you're at it!"?
> Not to mention that in terms of population, military response, economic > power and so forth, Australia is *tiny*. Our population is around that of > greater New York City, our economic impact perhaps half to a third that.
You're on the map, though. So you're either with George W. Bush or you're against America. You can probably think of ways that America can hurt you even if your population /is/ dispersed.
And New York actually is quite an important place.
Beyond that, it seems that the Australian electorate likes a certain amount of racism in its political body, and terrorists are an easy rhetorical target. When you observe that terrorists are mostly brown it's even better.
I've been wondering what was going to happen to Britain if we didn't go along with America. Secret messages were passed, I think, because I don't think the policy for war was in line with the public mood. Apparently Pakistan was liable to be wiped out by America; they might not have gone that far on us, but I suppose various British overseas interests would have been crushed.
James Mitchelhill wrote: > On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:49:27 GMT, Lesley Weston wrote: > > I get scared for much the same reasons when I'm with people who are drunk - > > I don't drink myself because I don't like the taste. But drunks are likely > > to do unpleasant things so it's rational to be scared of them, while > > religious people are likely to behave much the same as other people do, > > except in rare cases. I don't lament that people will insist on drinking, > > nor do I campaign for prohibition; I just avoid drunks as far as possible > > while not bothering about people who drink sensibly.
> Now imagine that the drunks are everywhere and that lots of people think > that being drunk is a good and responsible thing. Imagine that your > children are being taught by drunks, who want to tell your kids how great > alcohol is. Imagine that many politicians are permanently drunk and base > their decisions around the core values of alcoholism. Some of the drunks > who like whiskey think that the drunks who like beer are crazy, and vice > versa. A small minority of drunks seem to think that anyone who doesn't > drink like they do should be killed.
Lesley Weston wrote: > in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at > pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
> >> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a > >> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or > >> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good > >> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
> I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard > Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it > odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism.
Maybe he feels someone should. Maybe it's a hobby. I haven't looked into it.
> Surely the rational > stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't > try to force their beliefs onto other people?
Doesn't that imply political parties are organisations of irrational people?
> Yet RD seems to getting all > upset because he's encountering Christians and presumably people of other > religions - as upset as a fundamentalist would be on encountering atheists - > and he seems to be as anxious to convert religionists to atheism as > fundamentalists are to convert atheists (and the "wrong" religionists) to > their own faith. V. peculiar.
Alec Cawley wrote: > Len Oil wrote: > > Robert Carnegie wrote: > >> But then there's deep vein thrombosis, recently alleged to be > >> associated with poor air quality on planes, aggravated because smoking > >> was banned so they can turn off the air supply. And you get less > >> oxygen at altitude anyway. Well, they could maintain ground-level air > >> pressure but they don't.
> > I think the problem with maintaining pressure at sea-level (or linear > > transitioning between pressures to be found at departure/arrival > > airports) is that while sustaining this air pressure may be feasible, > > there are possible long term effects upon the pressure-holding skin that > > could cause fatigue, as the metal/whatever pressure skin is effectively > > inflated and deflated on every flight by the pressure differentials > > encountered.
> I think it is straight forward economy. The strength of the aircraft > hull is very carefully calculated. To take more pressure difference > while maintaining the same safety margin, the weight would have to be > increased. This would decrease both range and passenger carrying > capacity, so prices would rise. What premium would you pay for a "sea > level" flight?
Might work if the plane is big enough to take advantage of "ground effect" without hitting the big waves!
>Lesley Weston wrote: >> in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at >> pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
>> > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>> >> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a >> >> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or >> >> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good >> >> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
>> I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard >> Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it >> odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism.
>Maybe he feels someone should. Maybe it's a hobby. I haven't looked >into it.
>> Surely the rational >> stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't >> try to force their beliefs onto other people?
>Doesn't that imply political parties are organisations of irrational >people?
An organisation of the square roots of -1?
-- We're climbing up the sunshine mountains Where the pretty brezes blow We're climbing up the sunshine mountains Faces all a-glow
Sofia wrote: > I'm pretty sure he said he was thinking of doing a Rincwind novel soon. > I can't actually remember the thread exactly, but I got very angry > with him over a big misunderstanding I had with him over a "SOD the fans" > little joke he made at an interview, which I took pretty serious at the > time about Rincewind fans.
> He wrote back and explained it was just a little joke, and also added he > was doing another Rincewind novel - but that was ages ago, and I'm still > waiting for it!!
Would this be outside the SOD category (Science of Discworld??) Rincewind is not precisely the star but he's there.
It seems a shame to unplug him from the University where he gets regular meals and some hope of staying unnoticed and out of trouble. Surely the Small Boring Group of Faint Stars is done playing with him for the time being.
Sofia wrote: > He wrote back and explained it was just a little joke, and also added he > was doing another Rincewind novel - but that was ages ago, and I'm still > waiting for it!!
Well, that's your problem. Waiting around for Rincewind is only going to work if you are standing a the one place that trouble isn't, but doubtless will be shortly after... ;)
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:49:27 GMT, Lesley Weston wrote:
>> in article o84pduo13nig$.1ksref8ypfpv1....@40tude.net, James Mitchelhill at >> ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote on 27/10/2006 3:52 PM:
>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:55:11 GMT, Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>> in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at >>>> pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>>>>>> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a >>>>>> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or >>>>>> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had >>>>>> good >>>>>> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is >>>>>> entertaining:
>>>> I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard >>>> Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find >>>> it >>>> odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism. Surely the rational >>>> stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't >>>> try to force their beliefs onto other people? Yet RD seems to getting all >>>> upset because he's encountering Christians and presumably people of other >>>> religions - as upset as a fundamentalist would be on encountering atheists >>>> - >>>> and he seems to be as anxious to convert religionists to atheism as >>>> fundamentalists are to convert atheists (and the "wrong" religionists) to >>>> their own faith. V. peculiar.
>>> From a particular perspective, religion is a very frightening thing. For a >>> start, most people who claim to be religious haven't thought very much >>> about it, or indeed made a conscious decision to believe in their God(s).
>>> As Betrand Russell said: "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, >>> they do so."
>>> The implications of millions of people acting in what are, from an >>> objective point of view, very strange ways are scary. What does that imply >>> about the rest of their actions? Or all their decisions? And these people >>> can vote. In fact, a lot of the people they're voting for think (or not) >>> exactly the same way. And they have power.
>>> And the ones who have made conscious choices - if you're starting from the >>> perspective that science and rationality is quite obviously the only >>> reasonable way to think about things, then to have otherwise rational >>> people make these bizarre choices is deeply worrying: What kind of humans >>> are we sharing the Earth with? If they believe in these things, what kind >>> of irrational things will they do? How can we ever trust them to behave >>> predictably?
>> I get scared for much the same reasons when I'm with people who are drunk - >> I don't drink myself because I don't like the taste. But drunks are likely >> to do unpleasant things so it's rational to be scared of them, while >> religious people are likely to behave much the same as other people do, >> except in rare cases. I don't lament that people will insist on drinking, >> nor do I campaign for prohibition; I just avoid drunks as far as possible >> while not bothering about people who drink sensibly.
> Now imagine that the drunks are everywhere and that lots of people think > that being drunk is a good and responsible thing. Imagine that your > children are being taught by drunks, who want to tell your kids how great > alcohol is. Imagine that many politicians are permanently drunk and base > their decisions around the core values of alcoholism.
But this is reality, if you substitute "drinkers" for "drunks". Most religious people are just as harmless as people who have had one or two drinks [1] and intend to do so again tomorrow.
> Some of the drunks
> who like whiskey think that the drunks who like beer are crazy, and vice > versa. A small minority of drunks seem to think that anyone who doesn't > drink like they do should be killed.
These are the equivalent of religious zealots, not of most practitioners of any religion.
> ...but let's not push the analogy too far.
Oh I don't know... how about people armed with unopened and well-shaken bottles of champagne bursting into meetings of the Temperance Society?
[1] Assuming they are used to it and can handle it. Since I don't drink except for literally a few sips of wine (with food) if it's a really good one or someone's getting married or whatever, those few sips are all I can handle. Any more, and my head starts spinning and I laugh a lot. I don't start preaching that everyone should drink, though.
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, changing spelling and spacing as required.
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:07:27 GMT, Lesley Weston > <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> in article 7ma5k25p3r163tj2fnhekbt508ck8ut...@4ax.com, SteveD at >> use...@vo.id.au wrote on 27/10/2006 6:13 PM: >>> Or at least Australia _was_ an unlikely target >>> until the current Prime Minister started following George Bush around and >>> flapping his gob about terrorism at every opportunity.
>> So we should keep quiet and do nothing for fear that the terrorists might >> notice us? Some Canadians think the same way, others think it might be a >> good idea to do whatever we can to stop it.
> Not out of fear. However, if there's a small group of loonies who have > been known to cause trouble and who are stinging a larger loony who is > flailing all around and causing massive unfocused destruction in response, > is it really a smart thing to step up and say to either party "Hey, look > over here, why don't you shoot at us too while you're at it!"?
It's smart to do whatever we can to stop the small group of loonies, whoever they're attacking. If this means allying ourselves with the most powerful person around and helping in their efforts to control the loonies, then that's what we should do.
> Not to mention that in terms of population, military response, economic > power and so forth, Australia is *tiny*. Our population is around that of > greater New York City, our economic impact perhaps half to a third that.
Canada too. Our population is around thirty-six million, and our army is scandalously under-equipped and under-personned [1]. We still try to help, though.
> What, precisely, is the point in seeking out foreign conflicts which have > nothing to do with us and then taunting one of the sides?
They do have something to do with everybody - we all live here and there isn't anywhere else to live yet.
> That's like > heading out of a shoebox apartment to go find a gang who's been throwing > stones at the mansions on the other side of the city, and then pulling > faces at them. You get beaten up by the gangs and the mansion owners never > even know (or care) that you were there. Meanwhile, the fridge in the > shoebox apartment still needs cleaning, and there's a possibility that > someone from the gang will take it into their head to follow you home and > throw rocks at you too.
So it is out of fear, after all.
[1] IMO, we should either have no army at all and not engage in any military activities anywhere in the world (which is a perfectly valid argument), or we should equip our army properly before sending people into danger. One or the other, not send them out with no protection because it's immoral to supply the army with what it needs to be effective.
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, changing spelling and spacing as required.
> Lesley Weston wrote: >> in article pan.2006.10.27.16.42.03.532...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com, Sofia at >> pinkmonster2000REM...@ALLCAPSyahoo.com wrote on 27/10/2006 9:42 AM:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:49:06 +0000, David Sewell wrote:
>>>> Oddly enough, Richard Dawkins has been over here for over a week on a >>>> signing/reading tour for "The God Delusion" and has yet to be lynched or >>>> stoned. And that includes appearances in Bible Beltia, where he's had good >>>> reception and a standing ovation or two. His tour journal is entertaining:
>> I don't seem to have David's post, so I'll reply to Sofie's. Richard >> Dawkin's journal is indeed entertaining, like all his writing, but I find it >> odd that he should be so evangelical about atheism.
> Maybe he feels someone should. Maybe it's a hobby. I haven't looked > into it.
>> Surely the rational >> stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't >> try to force their beliefs onto other people?
> Doesn't that imply political parties are organisations of irrational > people?
Your point being?
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, changing spelling and spacing as required.
in article 6669k29mcsg5h70d6b3khkn0l2tnndp...@4ax.com, Lister at fa...@SPAMclara.net wrote on 29/10/2006 4:14 AM:
> On 29 Oct 2006 03:51:31 -0800, "Robert Carnegie" > <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
<snip>
>>> Surely the rational >>> stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't >>> try to force their beliefs onto other people?
>> Doesn't that imply political parties are organisations of irrational >> people?
> An organisation of the square roots of -1?
Pie.
-- Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, changing spelling and spacing as required.
The time: 29 Oct 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The speaker: Lesley Weston <brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk>
> in article 1r8bi4efqdrf4.1qnldk7y7scso$....@40tude.net, > James Mitchelhill at ja...@disorderfeed.net wrote on > 28/10/2006 2:12 PM:
<religion/drink analogy>
>> Now imagine that the drunks are everywhere and that lots >> of people think that being drunk is a good and responsible >> thing. Imagine that your children are being taught by >> drunks, who want to tell your kids how great alcohol is. >> Imagine that many politicians are permanently drunk and >> base their decisions around the core values of alcoholism.
> But this is reality, if you substitute "drinkers" for > "drunks". Most religious people are just as harmless as > people who have had one or two drinks [1] and intend to do > so again tomorrow.
But there aren't, for instance, "publican schools"[1], where young people's science classes brush over any evidence drinking can be bad for you, with approval from the Prime Minister because everyone's entitled to a point of view...
[1]Like parochial schools, only with pubs instead of parishes.
-- Dave Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/ "The need to compile lists is a personality disorder, as is the need to assert the superiority of some things over other things." -Jeremy Hardy
<brightly_coloured_b...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >in article 6669k29mcsg5h70d6b3khkn0l2tnndp...@4ax.com, Lister at >fa...@SPAMclara.net wrote on 29/10/2006 4:14 AM:
>> On 29 Oct 2006 03:51:31 -0800, "Robert Carnegie" >> <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
><snip>
>>>> Surely the rational >>>> stance is that it doesn't matter what people believe, so long as they don't >>>> try to force their beliefs onto other people?
>>> Doesn't that imply political parties are organisations of irrational >>> people?
>> An organisation of the square roots of -1?
>Pie.
Mmm, pie
-- We're climbing up the sunshine mountains Where the pretty brezes blow We're climbing up the sunshine mountains Faces all a-glow
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:14:29 GMT, Lesley Weston wrote: > in article csf8k2dkolvvl7aan10e5h83csfald7...@4ax.com, SteveD at > use...@vo.id.au wrote on 28/10/2006 9:58 PM: >> Not out of fear. However, if there's a small group of loonies who have >> been known to cause trouble and who are stinging a larger loony who is >> flailing all around and causing massive unfocused destruction in response, >> is it really a smart thing to step up and say to either party "Hey, look >> over here, why don't you shoot at us too while you're at it!"?
> It's smart to do whatever we can to stop the small group of loonies, whoever > they're attacking. If this means allying ourselves with the most powerful > person around and helping in their efforts to control the loonies, then > that's what we should do.
Even if their efforts only make things worse for everyone?
You don't defeat terrorists by attacking them. That makes them more powerful. You defeat terrorists by removing the popular support they have by addressing their supporters' security agendas.
Allying with someone working absolutely against this is not only dumb, it's suicidal.
|
