It's yet another atheist bus poll

It's good to see that 30% of Canadians are against free speech.

Wow, I flipped it to 58% by myself.

I live in Toronto and I cannot believe people are voting no to this! I'm starting to dislike this city more and more.

The angry (even violent) responses seem like an analogy to an immune response. Memetic immunology, anyone?

I live in Toronto and I cannot believe people are voting no to this! I'm starting to dislike this city more and more.

"No, is it offensive to many people to see such ads in public places. 28%"

Your BUTT is offensive.

LOL - Did you guys see the weather forecast next to the poll?

At least they acknowledge that "This is not a scientific poll". Most of the Christianists voting to suppress free speech probably don't even live in Canada.

I want an atheist freeway...kinda like the autobahn.

"No, is it offensive to many people to see such ads in public places. 28%"

Your BUTT is offensive.

The Pharyngula Effect: 59 - 14 - 27
It's a start but sad that we have to pharyngulate it to make our case.

For freedom of speech, I did vote.

Current results:
Freedom60%
Accommodationism14%
Censorship26%

It's nice to know that our existence is offensive to 26% of respondents. Truly heart warming.

This was the most disgusting public transportation sign I have ever seen. It was in Chicago around 1992 or 1993. It had three symbols: a poster about a slave auction, a swastika and a NOW "Keep Abortion Legal" sign.

The dishonesty of this upset me enough that I bought blank stickers and a marker. On the sticker I wrote "The Nazis Outlawed Abortion". I stickered every sign that I saw. No one stopped me.

Uhh... I've been thinking about solutions to Freedom of Speech troubles.

What is wrong with the following?

http://www.reddit.com/r/ideas/comments/7tapl/proposal_for_a_new_legisla…

The thread is not long.

I wrote it to try out an idea but so far I haven't got any opinion as to why it would suck.

It sucks?

When you think of it, it is down right annoying that we have to placed in a position for approval to get the rational message across, when the religious morons just do it because their stupid majority prevails. This is just freaking "bible", to use the substitute word for this crap. "Should atheists be allowed to ridicule the "brain rotted by religion"(clinteas) and not fear retribution by their imaginary god?"

Actually, I read the "middle ground" answer as a "yes." I mean, that's pretty true -- obviously if the ad was a profanity-laden rant, nobody would read it.

That said, it's now 61y-13m-25n, with 1% voting for Pat Buchanan.

Without all of the idiotic reactions, the whole bus ad campaign would be a boring and largely ineffective effort.

Thank you theists for making religion look bad, secularism look good. We couldn't do it without you.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

I also noticed this small poll, which is currently running 80-20 in favor of evolution only...

Actually, I read the "middle ground" answer as a "yes." I mean, that's pretty true -- obviously if the ad was a profanity-laden rant, nobody would read it.

That said, it's now 61y-13m-25n, with 1% voting for Pat Buchanan.

#17 - absolutely right. The "yes" and "maybe" %'s should be added together because they both say, essentially, that atheists are governed by the same laws - and have the same rights - as theists

Oh come on Toronto! Give me an effing break. At least the yes vote is in the majority, but this showing is still quite pathetic. The atheist bus signs going up in Toronto was a big news story on the radio this morning here in Ottawa. The on air personalities were all for it under the guise of free speech, which is great, but the fact that this is such big news here really annoys me.

On CP24 poll, YES side now up to 64% Hmmm...wonder why THAT would be?

I agree with Janine; I find anti-abortion ads offensive. Does that mean I can petition to have them banned from Metro subway cars so they won't hurt my poor liberal sensibilities?

#17 - I don't think that's what they mean. I think what they means isn't "Yes, as long as it's not profane", but "Yes, as long as it doesn't actually criticize people's beliefs". So, they're deigning to acknowledge our existence, as long as we pretend that theism is equal to atheism.

It's still not too late to crash this poll which asks, "Do you think the medical use of embryonic stem cells is OK?"

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/index.html

As of this posting, "Yes" is behind 43% to 54%.

FWIW, scrolling down on the page shows that they also have an article about the art exhibit "Sasquatch symbolizes female sexuality".

This response has always indicated, to me at least, that "we" are in the same catagory as people of color many years ago.
If you sit down and shut up in the back of the bus, everything is OK. But if you stand up and actually want the same rights as everyone else, it's time to get the dogs and water hoses out.

Here's something offensive on the ABE Books site:

"Collecting the Evolution Debate
The science versus evolution debate has created some highly collectible books. See how your collection can evolve."

At the time of writing this, it shows up here:

http://www.abebooks.com/

I'd even give them the benefit of the doubt that "science versus evolution" was probably a mistake. A pretty bad mistake, though.

Glen D
tinyurl.com/6mb592

That's one horribly clunky website.

For people convinced they have an all-powerful being in their corner they sure can be touchy.

This response has always indicated, to me at least, that "we" are in the same catagory as people of color many years ago.
If you sit down and shut up in the back of the bus, everything is OK. But if you stand up and actually want the same rights as everyone else, it's time to get the dogs and water hoses out.

huuummmmm Not sure I'd try and make that strong of an analogy with race struggles.

#25: That's how I read it too. The "maybe" response implies that atheist ads should be subject to an extra layer of editorial review compared to other ads.

I don't usually Pharyngulate polls, but Toronto being my old home town....
As someone said above, these polls don't much reflect the views of the locale anyway.

Now: 68-11-21

"Should atheist groups be allowed ... ?"
"Maybe, but it depends on the wording of the advertisement."

Actually, I read the "middle ground" answer as a "yes." I mean, ... if the ad was a profanity-laden rant, ...

How is skin color atheism relevant to the question whether profanity-laden rants should be allowed?

Dancing Kid, For people convinced they have an all-powerful being in their corner they sure can be touchy.

Give 'em a break. That bugger's feckin' capricious.

Now at 69%.

Jeff #1:

It's good to see that 30% of Canadians are against free speech.

It is not 30% of Canadians. It is 30% of people who have visited the site. These "Web polls" are not polls.

Janine - when you start feeling your vile bitchiness persona again, hop over to: GodIsImaginary.com you can print off a page of stickers there that riles up the religious every time. My favorite thing to sticker is church signs.

I live in Toronto. For the past several years there have been "Bus Stop Bible Study" bus and subway ads on the TTC with passages from the New Testament about the divinity of Jesus. It's nice to see some balance headed our way.

Re #27;

Ah, the elusive female orgasm.

*ducks*

31*

Yep for folks that spout the superiority of an all knowing all powerful all singing all dancing god of awesome power...they sure seem a tad spooky to have it challenged in any way...
Even in silent writing on a side of a bus!

One would think they are pretty sure that actually God is a pretty toothless old duffer and as such should be treated to care in the community !

They threaten and holler over and over again 'bout vengeance of the lord...but seem to know they are empty threats and resort to lawyers and whining to the media about Christian intolerance and suppression!

If that is indeed so... surely their sky daddy would sort out the nasty atheist scum that say naughty things about gods and deities ?...seems it is not the rejection all gods that irritates just that their god is also included in the legion of the damned!

I suppose the arrogance and ignorance never stops for some folks...must be uncomfortable for them...all that intolerance and suppression and them landed with a useless critter of a god that cannot seemingly be bothered to fight his own battles!

Well isn't this just great!!! Snake handler in charge of expanding the "Faith Based" programs.

"Leaders Say Obama Has Tapped Pastor for Outreach Office

* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
* Reprints
* Share
o Linkedin
o Digg
o Facebook
o Mixx
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Permalink

Article Tools Sponsored By
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: January 28, 2009

President Obama plans to name Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal pastor and political strategist who handled religious outreach for the Obama campaign, to direct a revamped office of faith-based initiatives, according to religious leaders who have been informed about the choice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29faith.html?_r=1&partner…

RE# 41.

I remember those bus ads. I remember one that really annoyed me where they used the often quote-mined Darwin quote:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed., p. 186.

Of course, they failed to mention that after this statement, Darwin went on for several more pages explaining how the eye could evolve through successive stages. The quote above is obviously a rhetorical question.

Talk about false advertising...

Currently it's at 70% yes, 10% maybe, 20% no

I just don't get it. Put a few signs with the atheist point of view on a bus, and people everywhere just freak out.

Well, duh. It's a common reaction when someone questions a view that you can't defend.

Why are the ads just going on the TTC buses? They should be on the red rockets too.

"huuummmmm Not sure I'd try and make that strong of an analogy with race struggles."

Rev. BigDumbChimp, first, I've always enjoyed your comments and website, just saying.
And yes, I'll fully admit there is a "stretch factor" in my statement. However, proudly made comments from past presidents, people in power, or this example of people who are making an outcry on the ads that non-believers, (ME!), don't have the same rights, or we are destroying the moral fabric, are not "true Americans", etc., etc., have always left me very concerned. The list of persons in power who can even admit they are non-believers without crashing their career is almost invisable. We have a glass ceiling we need to break through........

"No, is it offensive to many people to see such ads in public places."

I guess the translation is that it's okay to offend people as long as they're in the minority. If you're in the majority, then those pesky minorities should be silent and not offend you.

Yeah I wasn't attacking you (and thanks for the comliements), I just think that it is a bit of a stretch. I see the connection though just think that, as an atheist I feel discriminated against, I just think it pales in comparison to many of the stories people I know have told me about growing up black in the south during the 50's and 60's and even somewhat today.

Just watched this on the internet news: Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail and Coulter is defending Limbaugh. Crap, what a pair insane dimwits. Muck and mire.

I don't agree with any of those. Atheist messages should be allowed even places that religious ones are not.

It's 71% yes now ... :)

Yes, another click for freedom of expression. Bring them on, those atheistic ads in Rush-city.

No atheistic bus-ads here in The Netherlands, as religious bus-ads are not allowed. Billboards however... Xians are getting anxious.

RAM @49,

Got to agree with Rev. Chimp. I've nver been pulled over for DWA (Driving while Atheist) but I know a few guys here at work that have been pulled over for DWB (Drivng while Black). And that's not even in the South. We live up in Ohio.

I live in Owen Sound which is a two hour drive north of Toronto (Canadians always refer to distances in time rathger than distance). The usefulness of a poll such as this one is that it illustrates the popular ignorance of what the term "atheist" means. I would say that 1/3 of the approximately 28% that is currently voting other than yes are moral majority types while the other 2/3 are simply folks who connote atheism with immorality. These people don't really oppose secularist thinking - they're just plain dumb.

Thanks for breaking this dumb poll.

If an atheist message isn't ok, then the ZOMG! God so loves you, he's t3h win!!!! messages aren't either.

CBC's morning show in Toronto did a piece on the ads yesterday and today they ran the "reaction". I was happily surprised at the number of "I think it's a good idea" comments they got.

Many believers seem to shield their belief from analysis by pretending that it's the universal consensus: "hey, everyone believes in God!' It's about time they were confronted by the fact that no, not everyone believes in God. Time to wake up.

And not everyone thinks people should believe in God, either. Apparently the existence of atheists is only acceptable to these "offended" believers if they're encouraged to think that atheists buy into the flattering belief that faith is a wonderful thing, a virtue to be respected and encouraged -- and those who don't believe in God are a bit saddened and ashamed that they lack the necessary moral fortitude.

That's what really bothers them. Not only that atheists exist, but that we're not all sitting around envying them their peace, joy, and smug self-righteousness.

Another campaign is being plotted in Halifax, Canada: http://www.news957.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20090129_155054_5…

Inside me, I have this teenie tiny hope that someone, somewhere, will put up a poll with the hope of a pharyngula crash. If I web designed for some shitty local news outlet, I would.

atheistbus.ca details the campaign, which will be in Toronto, Halifax, and Calgary. That last city should be especially interesting, since Alberta is the Texas of Canada, and a significant portion of the populace is Christian fundamentalist.

Voted.

Now at 73% in favor of equal opportunity advertising for us godless.

No kings,

Robert

This reminds me, re the atheist bus campaign in Spain, some days ago the head honcho bishop of Madrid said the ads were insulting to Catholics and called for a "tutelated freedom of speech". How about that?

DGKnipfer, OK, I conceed, an overblown analogy on my part,
;-), but, while "not pulled over while driving" is not an issue because you cannot tell an Athiest by color, I'm sure you've read the cases of lost jobs, workplace discrimanation, etc., I've run into it myself.
Again, even name many open Athiest politicians, they know it's a career killer, that was more my point.
I know many of you read history, in examples not too long ago, where "we" were grouped into persons to be purged or worse. I know people think this can never happen in the good ole' USA, but under the right, (or wrong!) conditions, I'm not so sure. The last president scared the crap out of me with the direction he was leading. Melodramatic, OK maybe.............

It would appear that the decline in moderate church numbers the splintered and divisive bickering in Christian cults coupled with a seemingly rising profile of atheists that are standing up for the position finally... has made the god botherers very nervous...

They are in no situation to deal with this rising tide of dissent against their delusion as a united front...they really are afraid!

Not sure if it can be equated to the colour issues so redolent of recent and not so recent history...but it has the possibility to get rather nasty all the same...folks that are frightened tend to atrocity... lies... or at the very least of making life incredibly difficult for the enemy as they see it!

False accusations...claims of intolerance and whisper campaigns are all the fundamentalist brethren have left...I expect they will use these tactics without remorse but with a great deal of desperation especially with a Democrat at the controls...tis territory they are not happy bunnies in!

#32 huuummmmm Not sure I'd try and make that strong of an analogy with race struggles.

I tend to believe that the outward hate directed towards atheists is not as strong as it was against blacks simply because atheism is easier to hide than skin color.

In many places in the south, mention you are an atheist, and watch yourself get run out of town, at the very least.

They threaten and holler over and over again 'bout vengeance of the lord...but seem to know they are empty threats and resort to lawyers and whining to the media about Christian intolerance and suppression!

There is much in the behaviour of so-called believers which has long lead me to assume they really don't so much believe... Or at the very least that what they call 'belief' in their deity is rather different than most of what passes for belief in most other domains. So no one (with the possible exception of a few with odd brain disorders) really believes the god exists the way they know jumping off a cliff is likely to hurt them...

And what's noted here is just one of the odd dichotomies: they talk this endlessly brave game of how powerful is their deity, but seem by their actions to be very, very aware that this alleged power doesn't so much have a thing to do with anything that happens in this world. Sure, they'll pray, and sometimes actively for the deity's intervention if they're in a crisis and their sect's approach encourages or allows this, but it looks even there like the real calculation is usually hell, why not, it's not like it costs 'em much but a bit of time, so they figure they might as well burn some cycles on that while they're trying to figure out what they should really do... Prayer is invoked if the doctor says he's got nuthin' anyway, prayer is invoked to make you feel better, but they know the deity's not going to sew any limbs back on, really.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: religion is usually mostly a contract to agree on a sorta shared fantasy, and actually everyone knows very well it's a fantasy, but part of the implied social contract is you're just not supposed to bring that up. This is agreed upon with many a wink, many a nod throughout your indoctrination, until you get it: what is critical is not so much that you believe. What is critical is that you agree to say you do, and in terms appropriate to your sect's approach and culture.

I was hoping this poll would get PZ'd. This morning when they started the poll they were commenting that it was neck 'n' neck. They'll no doubt prattle on about it tonight. (CITY TV is a totally credulous tv station that always has the latest psychic or CAM scammer on.)

We caught a brief glimpse of Cliff Erasmus (the local CFI head in Calgary) being interviewed when we were channel-surfing and caught the tail end of a piece talking about the bus ads here. I haven't seen any angry talking heads here... yet :)

I'm intrigued at the shock value these simple bus ads are having.

There is much in the behaviour of so-called believers which has long lead me to assume they really don't so much believe... Or at the very least that what they call 'belief' in their deity is rather different than most of what passes for belief in most other domains. So no one (with the possible exception of a few with odd brain disorders) really believes the god exists the way they know jumping off a cliff is likely to hurt them...

And they get ticked off at atheists whenever we point that out to them, precisely because they want to pretend that everything they "believe" or "know" is equally true or valid and they don't like being reminded that it's not.

... I'd add to this that I also suspect this 'agreement to say you do' aspect of religion is one of the reasons they do get so pissed about atheists expressing themselves... This sort of expression strikes them as more offensive even than other religions and sects saying their bit (tho' that can get 'em going, too) and gets under their skin more precisely because the atheist fits in a different category, and they know it too well. A rival religionist, at least, they know is playing a game like theirs, and they recognize that bond, at least. The atheist is unsporting. She or he isn't playing along. It's like: c'mon, the rest of us are all onboard with this game, what's your problem? Just stop making trouble--that's the deal, we all signed--why do you think you should be an exception?

And they get ticked off at atheists whenever we point that out to them, precisely because they want to pretend that everything they "believe" or "know" is equally true or valid and they don't like being reminded that it's not.

Yeah... and that, too (was typing #72 when it came in).

Hey, Pharyngulites... there's another poll on this same issue running on the sister site of citynews.ca, along with a video from the newscast. If you can take some time and vote over there as well. There's still a significant minority of "yes, Atheist ads are offensive" on the web poll.

http://www.citynews.ca/

Hey, Pharyngulites... there's another poll on this same issue running on the sister site of citynews.ca, along with a video from the newscast. If you can take some time and vote over there as well. There's still a significant minority of "yes, Atheist ads are offensive" on the web poll.

http://www.citynews.ca/

A little update since I voted

Current results:
Freedom 73%
Accommodationism 9%
Censorship 17%

May logic prevail!!!

AJ Milne #68 wrote:

This is agreed upon with many a wink, many a nod throughout your indoctrination, until you get it: what is critical is not so much that you believe. What is critical is that you agree to say you do, and in terms appropriate to your sect's approach and culture.

Very well put. It's what Daniel Dennett calls "belief in belief."

Atheists not only break the social contract to believe in something supernatural, but that lack of belief means that the Mutually Assured Destruction pact won't work. Anyone who believes in one form of the supernatural can ill afford to question someone else's beliefs too closely. We don't have that problem -- which may be one reason why they're so desperate to try to persuade us that atheism is really a religion, and you have to have "faith" to not believe in God. They miss the protection.

Another curious thing about this belief is how strangely little they seem to reflect on or care about any of the details of the Most-Important-Thing-In-the-World to them. What is God, exactly? What's it made of? What is spirit? How does God do things? Where is it? Explain.

It's as if you're interrupting a story to ask questions about how 'The Little Engine That Could' managed to talk, without a mouth or brain. It's completely irrelevant. The only think they think about is how God acts in relationships, so that the plot moves along. That's where their interest ends. There's no real curiosity about the phenomenon itself-- which I would think one should expect if they really, truly believed.

This sort of "detail resistance" was noted by philosopher George Rey.

Great minds think alike. :)

A rival religionist, at least, they know is playing a game like theirs, and they recognize that bond, at least. The atheist is unsporting. She or he isn't playing along. It's like: c'mon, the rest of us are all onboard with this game, what's your problem? Just stop making trouble--that's the deal, we all signed--why do you think you should be an exception?

And when they babble on about revealed truths and experiencing the divine, they expect everyone else to take them seriously, as if their interpretation of some experience, like a dream, automatically makes it real and tangible to everyone else. Atheists don't play along, so they whine about how they're being persecuted by our opinions.

Interestingly, they did not provide a choice like "No, and neither should religious groups." (Or even, "No, buses shouldn't have ads at all.") Maybe some people don't want any side in the culture wars competing for their mindspace during their commute, and "no, it's offensive" was the closest answer they could find to their position.

Nisbet must be livid. Imagine, atheists having the unmitigated gall to actually come out of the closet and announce to the world we exist.

Yesterday during his sickening, sugar coated interview with Oprah, Ted Haggard said he felt through inner knowing that jesus had entered into to him and forgiven him. Everyone smiled and nodded at the dumbass. Christians actually expect us to believe that bullshit.

Oh, and Ted isn't gay. He's complex.
Try putting that on the side of a bus.

In many places in the south, mention you are an atheist, and watch yourself get run out of town, at the very least.

What can be even more insidious is having to deal with clueless proselytizers who "witness" to you. If hearing constant far-fetched tales of the miracles God has bestowed on them, and how they were once wretched non-believers just like you don't get you on board, then threats of eternal damnation, along with a little here and now intimidation, might do the trick. If you won't be swayed by their righteousness, revelations and love for you, then remember to lock the cat and dog in for the night, keep the autos in the garage, oh and stock up on lots of graffiti remover. It's amazing how many fine christians are so forgiving.

Another curious thing about this belief is how strangely little they seem to reflect on or care about any of the details of the Most-Important-Thing-In-the-World to them. What is God, exactly? What's it made of? What is spirit? How does God do things? Where is it? Explain.

Indeed. Which also fits the reality that certain directions you might take that questioning are also just going to bump up against that whole don't rock the boat agreement... There lies the danger noticing stuff that might cause trouble, so don't go there. Whereas vagueness and incuriosity are safe. Sure, some theologies may encourage inquiry in a sense--'contemplation' of the deity--but even for this there are rules, and rules meant to keep it within safe bounds. And within some religions, there are some marks of the attitude that do stick out--warnings against the making of too many books, intellectual pride, so on.

Amusingly, in a sense, I'd say they even sorta admit it, sometimes, when you think about it. There'll be that fairly direct instruction about faith itself being a virtue. And I think that's where a lot of that comes from, really. It's a tacit admission: yes, what we claim to believe, okay, you really can't... But don't let that stop you.

And then there's apologetics. The arguments are hilarious to the unbeliever, frequently obviously naive, circular, or worse, but then again, this is what you'd expect, since the point, again, isn't really to convince anyone who isn't already. The point is to have the appearance of having an excuse for claiming to believe what you're supposed to. The whole title of the enterprise is oddly appropriate when you think about it.

@41 - Bus Stop Bible Studies, ugh. Every single #53 I take seems to have one of their ads. I love ads which assume that I just must not have heard of this Christ dude.

If you check their web page, they're complaining about these atheist ads, and asking for money to counter them.

http://www.busstopbiblestudies.com/

I am much more pissed off about US tax money going to any religion than I am about bus signs in the Netherlands. All of that Bush "Faith Based" money was fungible and without oversight. All you have to do is drive around the country and see all of the new fundie churches and "family life" centers.

'There lies the danger noticing stuff' = 'There lies the danger of noticing stuff' (of course)...

Re the general hilarity of apologetics, also of course, when you think about it, it's not entirely a bad thing... 'Long as there's religion, there'll always be someone like Comfort to give us a giggle. He's an inevitable product of the whole game: the guy whose job is to defend the intellectually indefensible. And since there's no real need for rigour in that job, and any argument, however silly, will do, there'll always be lots and lots and lots (and lots) of silly to go around.

Fungible is my new word of the day.

The whole arena of apologetics sometimes makes me wish I'd become a theologian instead of an anthropologist. Spend all your time making up stuff that sounds good, rather than do actual research. What a great racket.

Spend all your time making up stuff that sounds good, rather than do actual research. What a great racket.

But at the end of the day you're Ray Comfort or Bill Dembski, or someone like that. I'd rather die of black lung after 25 hard years in the mines.

The whole arena of apologetics sometimes makes me wish I'd become a theologian instead of an anthropologist. Spend all your time making up stuff that sounds good, rather than do actual research. What a great racket.

The life of a few of the more obvious cons who've started NRMs sometimes seriously makes me think, too... I mean, sure, Hubbard seems to have gone more than a bit insane over the course of the thing (assuming he didn't start that way), but geez, the moolah...

(It is that general insanity/paranoia thing that keeps me honest, among other things, I think, tho'... Ya look at the televangelists, Smith, Hubbard, and it does look rather like pulling a con like that for any amount of time does take its toll on your very grasp of reality. Sooner or later, you con yourself, too. Better to live relatively honestly, a little less deluded, a little more stable... I guess.)

But at the end of the day you're Ray Comfort or Bill Dembski, or someone like that. I'd rather die of black lung after 25 hard years in the mines.

Also true. And I'd bet that some of the loathing you get from the merely honest is, now and then, at least, mirrored by more than a little self-loathing.

So yeah. Black lung is actually probably at least a competitive deal.

Now 75%, 9% and 17%. Yay!

Theodore, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It looks like Toronto is going to be getting some pretty nice weather this week. Practically balmy. My uncle would probably be sunbathing in it.

Well dip me in buttermilk, fungible is the proper word for those funds.

OT Austin had some pranksters hack into some of the electronic roadside message signs, and changed them to read things like NAZI ZOMBIES! RUN!!! and CAUTION! ZOMBIES AHEAD! and ZOMBIES AHEAD RUN!!!! and the typical fundie favorite, THE END IS NEAR!!!

More info, with a video link here.

I dont see why some people are so threatened by atheists........

AJ Milne #84 wrote:

And then there's apologetics... The point is to have the appearance of having an excuse for claiming to believe what you're supposed to. The whole title of the enterprise is oddly appropriate when you think about it.

Heh, I know -- I love the hidden admission there.

Back when I used to prowl the debate rooms on IRC, I liked to enter unknown rooms with names like #apologetics with a cheery and naive-sounding "'Apologetics?' Hey, what you guys all so sorry about?" (or, "'Reformed?' Reformed from what, you been bad?") You could hear them smacking their lips over the fresh meat, innocent and ready to be trimmed, dressed, and done brown with their searing arguments for the Faith. After a bit they realized they'd been played some, but I still thought the term "apologetics" sort of asked for it.

Ted Haggard said he felt through inner knowing that jesus had entered into to him and forgiven him.

Jesus? So that's the name of his latest escort?

Dear PZ,

Our religious crackpots are trying to ban it here too.... stand vast!

Regards,
Rhysz

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 29, 2009 5:34 PM

Well dip me in buttermilk, fungible is the proper word for those funds.
********
I don't know if my usage meets a strict definition but I use it in the contest of Tax dollars going for a fundie sex ed. or other "social" program and ending up paying for church buildings. It is truly amazing to see the amount of new "fundie" church construction in areas where the is no way in hell that the congregation has the financial resources to pay for it. I was hoping that with a Dem President and Dem Congress that the money would be shut off, unfortunately it looks as if the money is going to increas.

I agree that Dennett hit the nail on the head in the chapter on Belief in Belief. Especially the distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Since we can never be certain about the specific content of other people’s beliefs we can never be certain of orthodoxy. But actions are more public. They can be verified. So, we can be certain of orthopraxy. And certainty is one of, if not the, highest ideals to a fundamentalist.

I’ve seen well intentioned believers tie themselves into quite a pretty bow trying to reconcile some of the more obvious contradictions to the idea that all religions are really worshipping the same god. As long as there was some outward sign of faith, it’s all good to them. They get their orthopraxy.

But atheists don’t give them this token nod to ritual, or devotion, or whatever they seek, so their certainty breaks down. That is why a lack of belief is so much more threatening than a belief that is merely different.

But at the end of the day you're Ray Comfort or Bill Dembski, or someone like that. I'd rather die of black lung after 25 hard years in the mines.

I agree. Darn these ethics of mine!

Well, I just voted and the results are tilted more in our favour. And I heard on the radio today that the bus ad campaign is coming to my province, far, far away from Toronto. The radio host who interviewed the skeptics rep was very even handed. Bravo the CBC. There will be complaints around here, but there are enough free thinkers we will probably see it happen. I have colleagues who are religious, but a larger number who are atheists and who think religious people are nutters. We have contemplated organizing. Most of us on the atheist side have tenure now, so it's time.

Nicely done, up to 75%. Let's try for 98%.

I don't get your post. Atheists can question whether there's a god in a bus sign but CP24 shouldn't question whether atheists should be able to do it? You're in favour of everyone being able to question everything, aren't you?

CP24's raising a debate, much like the atheists, one that might happen to displease some people, much like the atheists ads. If anything, they're drawing attention to the atheists' cause.

AJ Milne #68:

There is much in the behaviour of so-called believers which has long lead me to assume they really don't so much believe

Long ago, I have come to the conclusion that the actual meaning of such a word as "believe" is not the same as "consider true", dictionaries notwithstanding. You summed up pretty much all of it.
On a note aside, in Genova, Italy, the campaign has been quietly wiped out, but not before it stirred the collective immune system: now you see posters on the wall saying "God exists. Even atheists know it". For those familiar with the terminology, it makes me think that we are entering GandhiCon three -same as USA.

Back when I used to prowl the debate rooms on IRC, I liked to enter unknown rooms with names like #apologetics with a cheery and naive-sounding "'Apologetics?' Hey, what you guys all so sorry about?..."

Heh. Nice.

Apologetics: yes, this is really the argument we're going to make. We're sorry.

Re: Fcaccin (#106)

You hit on a good point here. I'm careful to avoid the word 'belief' for that very reason when discussing topics such as evolution. I usually say 'accept' the theory of evolution, rather than 'believe in.' The same thing occurred with the word 'truth' usually capitalized by fundamentalists. They're taking words and making them their own, colloquially. It's a form of cultural warfare of its own, one we are ill-equipped to fight.

Large groups have been doing it for a long time. 'Denialism' is an word with very ugly connotations, and it's being used by the left for that reason. I'm sure to draw fire for that, but it's absoulutely true (which is why the comment generates angst).

Wade, get your crash helmet ready, you are about to have a tonne of bricks dumped on you by many far more articulate than me!

Atheists do not question if there is a god, they know there is almost certainly no god.

I , and I am sure other atheists here, object to the poll because we take it as a given that atheists have the same right to free speech as those who believe in fairy tales. No debate needed.

It is not so surprising that religious people are so afraid of atheist messages. It simply reflects that absolute doubt they have about their house of cards beliefs. When something is intellectually indefensible the only defense is intolerance and censorship of countering ideas.

Teh problem I have is that if atheists succeed in their goal of making the world atheistic, then, if history is any indication, we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder.

Re: PalmPete (#109)

I don't think Wade's question warrants all that harsh of a reaction, do you?

Re: Wade (#105)

My answer is, should the majority be allowed to rule over the minority with tyranny? If our roles were reversed and atheists were in the majority, would it be right for us to demand suppression of a Christian viewpoint/speech? I contend that the First Amendment was written with precisely this kind of dilemma in mind and it protects all speech, not just speech the majority finds inoffensive. How about you?

The problem I have is that if atheists succeed in their goal of making the world atheistic, then, if history is any indication, we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder.

NSchuster, you are a liar and bullshitter. But then, what else is new from deists? They are the biggest liars and killers on the planet.

The worst mass murderers in history, Stalin and Mao, were atheists. A disproportionate number of atheists were mass murderers, and vice versa. Just about every time atheists run a government, they wind up commiting mass murder. Their still at it in North Korea.

#111 is crazy. Since there are no atheists of any number in history the argument fails. Worse, since there is much in the way of mass murder in history always directly tied to religion - the argument is backwards.

The worst mass murderers in history, Stalin and Mao, were atheists. A disproportionate number of atheists were mass murderers, and vice versa. Just about every time atheists run a government, they wind up commiting mass murder. Their still at it in North Korea.

Re: Nerd of Redhead (#114)

I believe you mean 'theists.' Deists believe that there is a god but don't believe that deity influences the universe in any way aside from having created it. They represent the greatest application of agnosticism about religion while still believing in a deity.

N. Schuster is obviously being a troll crank and what he said was baiting.

Seems pretty clear to me, too, it's less the question PZ's peeved with as the answer of a certain subset...

But then this, too, is a standard religious confusion of late. 'Ask any question' shall be sneakily extended to mean 'And any answer, however poor, shall not be criticized.'

And right on cue, N.Schuster invokes Doggerel #114.
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2007/07/doggerel-114-communists.h…

N. Schuster,
Do you mean like the recent xian mass murders in Rwanda and the Balkans?

And that's only in the last ten years or so.

N.Schuster = Poe?

Just watch, he'll declare all the atrocities historically commited by Christians (the Inqisition, etc.) to be No True Scotsman.

George:

The leaders of every communist country where the mass murders took place were all atheists. Should I provide a list?

The worst mass murderers in history, Stalin and Mao, were atheists. A disproportionate number of atheists were mass murderers, and vice versa. Just about every time atheists run a government, they wind up commiting mass murder. Their still at it in North Korea.

The word you are looking for is Communists. That and the cult of personality they built around themselves.

Their atheism has nothing to do with it.

Tell me what being an atheist says about totalitarianism and killing?

What in the definition of atheism says you must do that?

By even making that argument you're pretty much screaming out

"I have a very narrow myopic understanding of history."

Re: Wowbagger (#122)

Can't be, the rhetoric is identical so it can hardly be mistaken for a parody.

Religious people have done bad things, its true. but nobody kills like an atheist. And the brands opf communism practised by the different communist countries were all so diffenrent that I don't think that they can be cosidered a common factor. The only common factor is atheism.

The bus strike in Ottawa is over! Now let's gets some atheist ads on those vehicles... Toronto can't have *all* the fun!

New numbers
YES 78%
Maybe 8%
No 16%

Religious people have done bad things, its true. but nobody kills like an atheist. And the brands opf communism practised by the different communist countries were all so diffenrent that I don't think that they can be cosidered a common factor. The only common factor is atheism.

N.Schuster
God obviously knew that Stalin, and Mao were atheist murderers, that's why he turned them into pillars of salt and silenced the atheists once and for all.

No, hang on a minute. He didn't.

This must mean, either He didn't know (but He's All-Knowing) couldn't do the pillar of salt trick anymore (but He is omnipotent) or just didn't care (but He's such a compassionate god who IS love).

But,the real reason though is that God is just a fairy tale after all.

http://www.bttoronto.ca/poll/?p=1&id=1106

The poll on breakfast television about the same issue says that 47% of people find it offensive! :(

Only a fool would deny that they were brutal dictators. And only a fool would argue that the murder were not for reasons of a brutal political ideology. The fact they were atheist is ultimately incidental.

N. Schulster, get prepared to have your head handed back to you as well as have a new asshole ripped for you. Congratulations. You are the troll du jour for tonight.

D Finch @128: what?! Are you serious? I knew there was a vote happening today, but I never expected this strike would ever be over! Thanks for brightening my evening.

NSchuster, the religious start lying by saying god exists. It goes downhill fast from there. The bible is a lie. Their alleged biblical morals are lies. When does it stop? When god goes from between their ears. Then they stop lying.

HenryS #100

I don't know if my usage [of fungible] meets a strict definition but I use it in the contest of Tax dollars going for a fundie sex ed. or other "social" program and ending up paying for church buildings.

As Pharyngula's token economist I assure you that your use of fungible is acceptable. A fungible item is returnable or negotiable in kind or by substitution, i.e., a quantity of grain substituted for an equal amount of the same kind of grain. In the case you cite, currency designated for one purpose is being substituted for currency designated for another purpose.

And who cares if atheism is a motivating factor in the mass murder? The people they killed are just as dead. Are you willing to take a chance, when the numbers are against you?

"Religious people have done bad things, its true. but nobody kills like an atheist."
Translation: any and all atrocities commited in the name of Christianity are irrelevant because...uh...COMMUNISTS!

What is it with Christians and death tallies? "Dictator x killed x amount of people, x kids dies because of x idea, feminists kill x amount of babies...".

Just so we're clear, I also dislike "religion killed x amount of people". Comparing death tallies is a historical pissing contest that leads nowhere. How far back do you go to calculate these things? Does a natural disaster count as an act of God ? Or is it scientific negligence? What if the most devout Christian turns out to be a mass murdering pedophile? What if a monarchy associated to religion is overthrown? Is it an atheist revolution or a coup d'etat? Should we start asking every maniac that comes along: "Excuse me, do you have a belief system in particular or are you just bat-shit crazy? We're trying to keep score, you see."

Posted by: N.Schuster | January 29, 2009

Religious people have done bad things, its true. but nobody kills like an atheist. And the brands opf communism practised by the different communist countries were all so diffenrent that I don't think that they can be cosidered a common factor. The only common factor is atheism.

Wrong! The only common factor is keeping power.

And who cares if atheism is a motivating factor in the mass murder? The people they killed are just as dead. Are you willing to take a chance, when the numbers are against you?

Of course, Schuster has seized upon only one commonality between Mao and Stalin: that of their atheism.

They have another: they were both in favour of censorship. And since I note from his very first post Schuster himself is also in this camp, I must conclude by his very own logic that he, too, is a potential mass murderer...

NS, you'd probably better report yourself to law enforcement, as a preventative measure. Remember: this is your own logic here. And thus clearly irrefutable.

Haha, I am watching CP24 right now, and they are talking about the web poll. I wonder if they will suspect anything! :). Keep those yes votes coming. I'll let you know if they say anything about the results on the air.

Online polls are for crashing. It's down to 16% "no" now 8^).

N. Schuster #113 wrote:

The problem I have is that if atheists succeed in their goal of making the world atheistic, then, if history is any indication, we can expect to see a marked increase in mass murder.

"Atheism" is too broad a category; same for "theism." Neither one are complete philosophies or world views.

There are no instances of totalitarian repression done in the name of 'secular humanism' -- which is based on the principles of human rights, democracy, reason, science, tolerance, and open inquiry. I would not expect to see a marked increase in mass murder in societies with those values -- whether they were theistic, or nontheistic.

Actually, a society which was secular and humanistic wouldn't be an "atheist" society -- even if everyone in it happened to be an atheist. Humanists are in favor of church-state separation -- even if they're in the majority. Imagine that.

It would be a secular society. Like the U.S., only without the constant government prayer.

N.Schuster 142

And who cares if atheism is a motivating factor in the mass murder?

Now show that atheism was a motivating factor in the mass murders. Give examples where Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. announced that they were killing people in the name of atheism. You're the one making the claim, so it's up to you to give evidence to support that claim.

I never said that I;m in favor of censorship. I'm just worried about the consequences.

And Janine:

So why don't theistic people kill like atheist to keep power?

The death total is a poor basis for an argument. You have to ignore that modern technology allows for a larger population and more effective weapons for killing. Imagine the destruction that could have been done during the Crusades or The Thirty Years Wars if they had modern weapon. Say, those were religious conflicts.

N.Schuster

So why don't theistic people kill like atheist to keep power?

Ever hear of the Inquisition? How about jihad? Did you know that the Thirty Years War was fought between the Catholics and Protestants and caused the death of about one-third the population of Central Europe?

Go learn some history and then come back to us.

Posted by: N.Schuster | January 29, 2009

And Janine:

So why don't theistic people kill like atheist to keep power?

I am going to use one of Mark Twain's favorite examples of just how inhuman religious people can be to each other. St Batholomew's Day Massacre.

Also, I am sure there are people here who could go off about the peaceful history of the Vatican City.

Ah, NS resorts to a variation on that golden oldie so old it's moldy, Pascal's Wager. It calls for using another variant back, methinks:

NS, you Christians have killed a lot of people in comparison to the Hindus, but who cares if Christian delusion was the motivating factor in Christians committing mass murders. The people they killed are just as dead. Are you willing to deny that Vishnu is the supreme deity, when the numbers of murdered are against you?

Schuster. You dumb ass. Atheism isn't a political system or a form of governance... there is nothing in atheism that would compel you to commit mass murder.

Find me any mass killings done in the name of godlessness... try.

I bet you can't name one off the top of your head.

But we can all name theists and cultists who have killed in the the name of god.

Look around, ye sinners, and behold the fruits of thy labor!

The more atheism has manifested, the more our economy has collapsed.

Secularists love to preach about "cause and effect", yet fail to see the consequences of the Divine Wrath they - you! - have provoked in just the law few months.

Stop it, before you kill us all!

If the vocal atheists of Britain, Canada, the US and all other lands where this conspiracy of blasphemy has spread, refuse to advertise their repentance on public transport wheresoever they have flaunted their disrespect for the Lord o' Lords™, on or before His next Birthday, the God-fearing citizens of all nations will be bound in their own defense to ensure such repentance, by torch and pitchfork if necessary (or tar and feathers, budgets permitting).

N Schuster
in # 148 you asked "So why don't theistic people kill like atheist to keep power?"

I had already provided examples of very recent Xian mass murder in my post#121.

Proof yet again that godbots don't read before they post

I am trying to decide if Pierce R. Butler is a Poe or an asshole. Right now I'm leaning towards both.

'Tis Himself, Pierce R. Butler trademarked Lord. It is satire.

I never said that I'm in favor of censorship. I'm just worried about the consequences...

Heh. 'Worried about the consequences'. Cute.

But NS, don't you see? This, too, is a commonality you must consider. Mao was 'worried about the consequences' of 'reactionaries' voicing their opinions... Stalin was 'worried about the consequences' (no doubt) of folk pointing out he was, in fact, purging pretty much everyone not actually named Josef Stalin...

So dude, I'm serious. It's your own conclusion. You're clearly imminently in danger of shipping everyone in this forum to Siberia. Can't be too careful. Check yourself in downtown, man.

(Also: you're all carbon-based... I presume. Could be significant. Check it out, dig?)

I am trying to decide if Pierce R. Butler is a Poe or an asshole. Right now I'm leaning towards both.

Dunno. But NS, if you are a Poe, can I ask you to do the 'religion is necessary for morality' thing, too? That's always a scream, and should be perfect after this setup.

As of 1/28/09 19:53 ET, the results are:

Yes – if religious groups can do it, why not let atheists as well?76%
Maybe, but it depends on the wording of the advertisement.8%
No, is it offensive to many people to see such ads in public places.15%

So why don't theistic people kill like atheist to keep power?

You are an idiot.

Ignoring the troll for a while, what I am finding fascinating is the difference in response to Atheist Bus here in the UK to that over in North America.

There you seem to have quite a heated debate going - a lot of theists getting really riled and vociferous. And, as someone said, to get anywhere in politics it is essential to present yourself as a Christian.

In the UK we have had some mild debate, an attempt by one of the looney groups to get the ads withdrawn as false advertising (thrown out after the shortest polite interval), and a bus driver who refused to drive the bus on conscience grounds. The bus co. refused to bite, patted him on the head, and said they would schedule him elsewhere, thus leaving no martyr.

Furthermore, the leader of our third political party (potentially holding the balance of power after the next election) calmly said he was an atheist when asked, and nobody has paid any attention. The public were much more concerned that Tony Blair WAS religious - he kept it as quiet as possible, and then converted to Catholicism after he left the job.

On this issue at least, I am very glad to live in this country.

I apologize ahead of time for this.

Really I do.

As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.

Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.

Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.

Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]

Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]

Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."

In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.

In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]

The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]

Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]

Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]

15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Number of victims unknown. [DO30]

16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]

Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]

9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]

Until January 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]

After 6/3/98 Antiochia (then Turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women and children) killed.
[WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]

Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]

Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."

The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]

Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]

Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]

Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]

Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]

Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]

Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]

Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (Cathars) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept Roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (the greatest single mass murderer prior to the Nazi era) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Number of victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic
neighbors and friends) estimated between 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]

Subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]

After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324.
[WW183]

Estimated one million victims (Cathar heresy alone), [WW183]

Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).

Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, allegedly was responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]

John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]

Michael Sattler, leader of a baptist community, was burned at the stake in Rottenburg, Germany, May 20, 1527. Several days later his wife and other follwers were also executed. [KM]

University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]

Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

Thomas Aikenhead, a twenty-year-old scottish student of Edinburgh University, was hanged for atheism and blasphemy.

From the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.

In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged.
[WV]

15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]

1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]

1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. [DO31]
Between 5000 and 6000 Protestants were drowned by Spanish Catholic Troops, "a disaster the burghers of Emden first realized when several thousand broad-brimmed Dutch hats floated by." [SH216]

1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]

17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]

17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]

17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians.Number of Jews slain unknown.

In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]

694 17. Council of Toledo: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]

1010 The Bishop of Limoges (France) had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]

1096 First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]

1147 Second Crusade: Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]

1189/90 Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked. [DO40]

1235, Fulda/Germany: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]

1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]

1290 Bohemia (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]

1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]

1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]

1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]

1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]

1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all Jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.

1492 In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492.
[MM470-476]

1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain.
[DO43]

Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.

Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]

On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

"I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]

Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]

In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]

On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]

The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and Spanish raids.
As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]

The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]

What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]

The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]

"And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitlán [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]

Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).

"When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead."
[SH95]

Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]

In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
"Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow Englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no
choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]

On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War." The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.

When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]

So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].

Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)

Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]

Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by Spanish methods of the time)
In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]

The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]

Other tribes were to follow the same path.

Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
"Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]

Like today, lying was morally acceptable to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]

In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]

In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]

To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about
30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.

All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.

A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.

In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]

Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore" had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]

By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'."
[SH244]

References:

[DA] K.Deschner, Abermals krähte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962.

[DO] K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987.

[EC] P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985.

[EJ] S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977.

[HA] Hunter, M., Wootton, D., Atheism from the Reformation to the
Enlightenment, Oxford 1992.

[KM] Schröder-Kappus, E., Wagner, W., Michael Sattler. Ein Märtyrer in
Rottenburg, Tübingen, TVT Media 1992.

[LI] H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961.

[MM] M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People.

[MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992.

[NC] J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic
Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992.

[S2] Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00.

[SH] D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.

[SP] German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996.

[TA] A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676.

[TG] F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980.

[WW] H.Wollschläger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zürich 1973. (This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings).

[WV] Estimates on the number of executed witches:

N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56.

Ward, I'm going to have to call you on this:

'Denialism' is an word with very ugly connotations, and it's being used by the left for that reason. I'm sure to draw fire for that, but it's absoulutely true (which is why the comment generates angst).

(underlining is mine.)

1) You can't simply declare that the motivation you've assumed for another person's comment is "absolutely true".

2) While the term's use may have originated in describing Holocaust denial, the general meaning used there is equally applicable under other circumstances. It's in common usage for a variety of purposes; do a Google search for "denialism" and you might be surprised by the lack of Holocaust references on the first page of hits. Instead you'll find AIDS denial, AGW denial, and definitions; such as:

...the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. (Wikipedia)

...the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none. (Denialism.com)

3) Attributing false motives to someone is far more likely to raise their ire than correctly identifying them. For example:

"People are only 'atheists' because they are angry at God; it's absolutely true which is why saying so generates angst."

N.Schuster,

Mao, Stalin et al. were probably all aunicornists as well - does that mean we should all believe in unicorns to prevent murder? How about leprechauns? The Invisible Pink Unicorn? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

And what do you think of the fact that Christians killed over 600,000 Americans in the US Civil War?

#163: Just watch N.Schuster say they don't count because they were not True Christians(TM) because they were Catholic, or Proestant, or were of the wrong denomination, or put ketchup on thier eggs or not.

N.Shuster:
Can your fucked up bias be any more egregious?
Who the hell wants to make the world atheistic? We want secularism in government, not a theocracy. If you want to believe in Gods, elves, fairies or ghosts, no problem. Start dictating that anyone who doesn't believe in what you believe should be silenced or forced to comply, THEN we have a problem. You're a moralist? Then govern your own morals. See if your house passes the white glove test. Witness by example not lip service.
I'm wasting my time writing this because you don't have a clue about how much you don't know. You are TSTKYS. And you probably think you're such a great guy. (hint: you're not as nice or bright as you think you are)
I'll say goodbye and good riddance, you waste of space.

It's very simple. The existence of a Christianity-founding Jesus is the sacred cow of our culture and any lack of respect makes believers break out in a sweat.

@ fcaccin #106: GandhiCon Three?...

YES 77%
MAYBE 8%
NO 15%

I think "tutelated freedom of speech" means "You can have freedom of speech unless we disagree with you."

CP 24 is the local ambulance-chasers.

'Tis Himself @ # 158: I am trying to decide if Pierce R. Butler is a Poe or an asshole. Right now I'm leaning towards both.

Thank you for not limiting my options.

Janine, Leftist Bozo @ # 158: Pierce R. Butler trademarked Lord. It is satire.

No, I trademarked Lord o' Lords™ - that other one is already taken. Better yet, lordolords.com seems to be available too!

Re #169: GandhiCon:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/GandhiCon.html

There.
Still learning about proper tag usage.

80% anyone?... 80%....do i hear 80%?

If you look at the previous polls, there are significantly more responses for this one than normal... good stuff!

Yes--anyone should be able to purchase ad space on a bus. But I'm not entirely sold that it's a good idea to plaster atheistic conclusions on board public transportation. This new brand of atheistic evangelism is quite distasteful. It is the religious with their many observances who are required to proclaim their unfounded beliefs in order to spread and propagate their insidious message. Atheism, on the other hand, is arrived at in quite a different manner. Atheists do not need to--and should not be inclined to--profligate their non-belief. Instead, all that is required to do is to present the evidence. This evidence, when subjected to critical thought and testing will nucleate an inevitable process. If reason is to prevail, it will be because humanity chooses to embrace it, not because it has been forced upon us.

Some of the earlier posters have hit the nail very much on the head. If a "believer" (in whatever) has a nagging doubt, convincing someone else to agree tends to suppress that doubt for a little while. The constant nagging to agree with them, convert, take their silly self-delusions as objective reality, isn't for you—it's for them.

Fine, Pierce. I still call satire.

Thank you for not limiting my options...

Oh, man, I didn't even notice he was talking about you... That was just... too... ummm...

Okay. I don't know what that is.

Matt #175 wrote:

Atheists do not need to--and should not be inclined to--profligate their non-belief. Instead, all that is required to do is to present the evidence.

My understanding is that there are several purposes for the ads. The first is that they usually advertise a particular group that people can check out and join. I'm going to assume you think that's fair, and a good reason to have an ad.

Another reason is to give confidence to atheists who are still "in the closet." 'No, you are not alone.' Especially in N. America, that can come as a major relief to some people.

Third, it gives a bit of visibility to atheists as fellow citizens who think their views are reasonable enough to bear stating on bus adverts. That's a pretty low bar, but even this seems to bother some religious folks. Those who are bothered need to be exposed to it some more, then, so they can calm down, get used to it, and gain a bit more perspective. There's a bunch of us.

And fourth, it might provoke some thought and interest on the issue itself, and hopefully inspire or lead to some reasonable conclusions down the road. I'm not sure exactly how you think atheists should "present the evidence" if they're more or less invisible. Though I agree that people aren't going to be slain in the spirit by a sign on a bus.

Bless you, Janine, Leftist Bozo!

If reason is to prevail, it will be because humanity chooses to embrace it, not because it has been forced upon us.

Reason prevails because it is reasonable, true, verifiable and just. There is no need to force it, nor can the mere advertisement of it's virtues be conceived as 'force'. Concern trolling is not as fashionable as it once was. Be they not afraid, they not be.

Enjoy.

Too many of the religious lie about what atheism is and misrepresent how atheists behave. The posters serve to remind people that atheists exists, atheism is a valid option and that there are reasons that people come to that conlcusion.

I agree it's going to have no effect whatsoever on the deeply religious. But to the fence-sitters, on the other hand, it might make all the difference in the world.

Looking better (and more Canadian) now:

Should atheist groups be allowed to buy advertising space on the TTC?
Yes 77%
Maybe 8%
No 15%

Followup question I'd like to see:

Do you think Christian groups should be able to buy advertising on the TTC?

Then:

Do you think people who want to get a message out to the public should be able to...well, you know....

77% say Yeah!
Awesome, even though not surprising.

15% say Waaah! My offense is worthy of state recognition and the passage of law to prevent it.
We should expect to suffer this 15%, this remnant, for as long as we are capable of suffering.

I expect 85% + before midnight. May my expectations be modest.

N. Schuster, you need to pay attention to what actually happens as opposed to what you would like to have happened.

@ your comment 142: What numbers? Record them here for our edification.

@ your comment 148: Atheist have little political power as compared to theists. Look about you. It is the theists who have a hold on power that they wish to keep, not atheists. So your question would more accurately be posed in these terms: "So why don't theistic people kill more atheists to keep their power?" Please, man, pay attention!

And to the Very Revved Up Big Dumb Chimp in comment 163: Nice rap sheet!! I bet you have had that baby in soak for a while, waiting for a moment like this. Nice, friend. Got me grinnin'.

Their still at it in North Korea.

I'm sorry, but I must protest your inclusion of North Korea amongst atheist states. It is well known that North Koreans have many supernatural beliefs concerning Kim Il-sung and his son, Jong-il. One belief is that cranes descended from heaven to retrieve Il-sung's body after his death, but were so moved by the sorrow of the people that they instead transported it to the palace where it lies in state to this day. Animals reportedly wept. Another is that Jong-il's birth on the slopes of sacred Mount Paek-du was heralded by a shining star (sounds familiar) and a talking bird that prophesied he would become general of the world. Il-sung even invented a near religion called Juche, a knock-off of Confucianism, which demands worship of himself and his son. The North Korean government supposedly uses a Juche calendar in which year one is the year of Il-sung's birth (once again, sounds familiar).

Kim Jong Il expects veneration, Guy Incognito. After all, his dad demanded and received it as the just recognition of a society steeped in paranoia and self denial. All allegiance to the State! Kinda like all allegiance to the phantom spook son of a phantom spook daddy.

And Kim gets it, by virtue of a population enclosed and fully segregated. Poor fools.

Ah, but here's how it works:

1) Completely unscientific poll is put on the web asking if atheists/agnostics are Nazis or Super-Nazis.

2) Atheists/agnostics flood the site (it is, after all, a completely unscientific poll.)

3) Site maintainers see this, and then toss out the votes and set it to some arbitrary value. It is, after all, a completely unscientific poll.

I hate web polls.

Much as I dislike the admission, I think you are correct, Al Sweigart.

Again. "We live in a world of symbols and abstractions, and many a man dies by his own cliches."

The chief argument against theists is that there is no practical way that they can be privy to the workings of an unlimited mind. Despite their claims. Despite old books. Despite common agreement.

Our minds are, admittedly, limited.. So much for claims of what dog swills.

N. Shuster the clown:

The worst mass murderers in history, Stalin and Mao, were atheists. A disproportionate number of atheists were mass murderers, and vice versa. Just about every time atheists run a government, they wind up commiting mass murder. Their still at it in North Korea.

Gee, you left out Hitler and the Nazis. Could that be because Hitler was a catholic and his henchmen were all good catholics and lutherans?

One of the bloodiest wars in history was the Taiping Rebellion which killed 20 million people. It was started by a Chinese xian. We won't even detail the New Word genocide by the European colonists or the bloody 400 year conflict between catholics and protestants. Or the continuing conflicts in the ME involving Moslems.

Rev. BigDumbChimp @ #163:

It's sure a darn good thing that the God-loving religious folk you listed weren't atheists, because then they would have had nothing to stop them from doing all sorts of immoral and violent stuff like killing--and not just a few, but thousands of people! Or torturing, or murdering children, or destroying religious buildings, or lying, or stealing, or cheating, or...

...No...wait...!

N. Schuster confused and stupid:

And who cares if atheism is a motivating factor in the mass murder? The people they killed are just as dead. Are you willing to take a chance, when the numbers are against you?

That is what makes the religious so scary. They kill often. Ask the dead of The World Trade Center about it or the dead in Northern Ireland or the Middle East, Iraq or Israel/Palestine.

The latest victim of religious murder...the US economy. We don't have to go too far back in history to see what toxic religion can do, the last 8 years of the Bush regime is far enough.

Crap. Between working and pouring a few down my throat, I missed this until now.Being a local T.O.'nian, I too am surprised by the results until the poll was Pharyngulized.
Of course as we know, polls are skewed for many reasons, a couple of major ones being the perception of what the term atheist means and the people who might hit on that particular news web site.
Great job, all!

Atheists do not need to--and should not be inclined to--profligate their non-belief

Profligate? I believe the word you were looking for was "promulgate". "Profligate" isn't even a verb - it's an adjective meaning "extravagant".

Re: Kagato (#164)

Seeing as you're aware of the term's roots, why defend its use? It doesn't become magically white-washed simply because someone edited a Wikipedia article. The term was chosen to elicit an emotional response from detractors.

'Skepticism' is a perfectly good word and is descriptive without being demeaning. It has no such roots.

Seeing as you're aware of the term's roots, why defend its use? It doesn't become magically white-washed simply because someone edited a Wikipedia article. The term was chosen to elicit an emotional response from detractors.

On the contrary; if you're describing exactly the same behaviour, why should the appropriate term not be used simply because the subject matter being denied the first time was so heinous? How about the term was chosen because it is accurate?

Holocaust denial, AIDS denial, climate change denial, evolution denial; the pattern of behaviour is identical.

* Maintain a position denying the overwhelming evidence to the contrary
* Try and create the false impression that there is a substantial controversy at play when there is none
* Use every opportunity this provides to promote your own worldview

No comparison is being made to the content being discussed, but the tactics are the same.

'Skepticism' is a perfectly good word and is descriptive without being demeaning. It has no such roots.

Skepticism has a very precise meaning in scientific discussions. If you would call someone who denies all evidence that HIV causes AIDS a 'skeptic', for example, you would be guilty of the very fault you're accusing others of; you would be labelling people who reject scientific evidence as being scientific-minded, attaching an undue weight to their words.

Of course it is used to imply those things, even when it doesn't fit, as when there isn't overwelming evidence, as in the case of belief in certain gods and belief in AGW.

Just about every time atheists run a government, they wind up commiting mass murder.

Erm, that's not exactly true. Former New Zealand PM Helen Clark, despite her many failings, has not (to the best of my knowledge) committed mass murder. Not to mention our own British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband; he's an incompetent fool, but if he's a mass murderer it's the first I've heard of it.

I think the problem here arises from a confusion as to the meaning of words. "Atheism" is not a philosophical or religious school of thought in itself. It's simply the absence of belief in a deity - which, in itself, can't motivate anyone to do anything, good or evil. Rather, the problem comes when one replaces god-belief with a secular religion like Marxism or Nazism, which - like theistic religious beliefs - is capable of motivating people to cause astonishing human suffering.

You are, of course, right that Marxists, Nazis and others have horrifically persecuted various Christian groups - but remember that many Christians throughout history have also been persecuted by other Christians, from the Catholic persecution of "heretics" in the Middle Ages, to the persecution of Catholics, Mormons and other minority groups in 19th-century America.

The only solution is - as Thomas Jefferson and other framers of the Constitution wisely saw - to separate religion from state, and have a legal framework which protects all religious and philosophical beliefs equally, and privileges no belief over any other. Everyone should support this; because the persecutors of today could be, and often are, the persecuted of tomorrow.

Re: Kagato (#196)

They are not equivalents. The Holocaust happened because there's ample evidence of it, photographic, recorded history by the Nazis themselves, eyewitness accounts from survivors, and the camps themselves still exist, as do the mass graves.

AIDS is pretty much a no-brainer. Anyone who has ever gotten AIDS also had HIV first.

Evolution denial is denial of a lot of multidisciplinary evidence from paleontology/geology to biology (genetic evidence). There can be skeptical positions on it, particularly on individual aspects (there has been heated debate over punctuated equilibrium, for example).

Climate, that's a whole different story. The only thing we have to predict climate is computer modeling and the IPCC's own models have failed to predict climate not one year after they were released. The evidence we have of the past are all proxies, some of them are good and others are poor (and have proven to be). The best levels of confidence the National Academies of Science in their report could give to the proxies only go back 400 years. We're talking about a field where direct evidence is difficult/impossble to get and measurements have only been taken for ~150 years. Skepticism about the conclusions abound and there are now hundreds of outed scientific detractors.

We're talking more about statistics and postulation in a field where we've got a lot of missing data and lack of understanding.

AGW hysteria is unfounded. Few scientists are actually hysterics, even among supporters of the hypothesis.

Of course it is used to imply those things, even when it doesn't fit, as when there isn't overwelming evidence, as in the case of belief in certain gods and belief in AGW.

I'm going to assume that was a typo, Africangenesis - unless there's something you haven't told us...

Africangenesis, that was a really clumsy sentence, but I think I got the drift.

If 97% of climatologists (the people who have spent their entire careers studying that subject) can look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion that global warming is occurring, and humans have contributed greatly to it, then yes I propose there is overwhelming evidence.

One could lay a legitimate claim to being a skeptic of climate change by bringing actual new evidence to the table that hasn't already been factored into the modelling. (That last bit's important.) If you're playing armchair scientist and throwing out the same debunked claims over and over, that's just denialism.

But it would be better to not drag AGW into this thread any further. I'm already going through that bloody argument on another board, and the topic is atheist bus ads anyway.

Wowbagger,

I don't evangelize atheism, if asked if I'm an atheist, I usually inquire regarding which definition of god or gods they have in mind. If they envision a god without mass, or who is ominiscient or omnipotent then I am an atheist. If they envision a lesser god, who might have survived a remote initiation of the big bang, and at this moment might be searching for us or some novel companions at sublight speeds, I am skeptical but agnostic. If they have the sun in mind, I am certainly a believer, but wouldn't see the point in worshipping beyond getting a good dose of vitamin D. Frankly, even if there was a god, I couldn't see one that wanted to be worshipped as worthy of worship. But, atheism is not what my life is about. Some people seem to pursue it religiously.

Re: Kagato (#201)

I don't know where you got 97% from but I'll guess it came from here. If it is, you're lying by omission (whether you realize it or not).

It says:

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Few scientists in the field doubt that humans play a role, but there are quite a few (even within climatology) that doubt that we play a significant role and fewer still believe we play a very significant role (the hysterical position of Gore and others). Hell, I don't doubt that humans play a role. That said, CO2 is a trace gas measured in parts per million and I disagree that the figures arrived at by the models are accurate, especially considering their wide variability and the failure of the models to produce reliable results with known data. I do not believe we should be taking an alarmist political position, nor do I believe that such shaky conclusions are worth bankrupting the world economy over.

Debunking the models themselves is good enough, they need not be replaced to be proven to be false. Hypotheses must be falsifiable, no matter how loathe you are to admit it. If the models continue to fail to predict climate then we need new models that can before we can leap to conclusions that the world is coming to an end.

Formulating an alternate hypothesis and finding supporting evidence for it is not necessary to reject a hypothesis on its own lack of merit.

I, too, tire of this argument.

Rather, the problem comes when one replaces god-belief with a secular religion like Marxism or Nazism, which - like theistic religious beliefs - is capable of motivating people to cause astonishing human suffering.

You are, of course, right that Marxists, Nazis and others have horrifically persecuted various Christian groups

Nazis were Christians. Lutherans, mostly. When you say "remember that many Christians throughout history have also been persecuted by other Christians" those other Christians include the Nazis.

And hundreds of millions of Marxists never hurt anyone. Have you a list of war crimes by your local SWP? Neither is Marxism a necessarily secular endeavor. See liberation theology, aka Marxist Catholicism.

You're a very superficial thinker, Walton, so I advise you not to embarrass yourself by publicly arguing these details.

Kagato,

You must be ignorant of the development cycle of the models if you don't realize that there is a lot that "hasn't already been factored into the modelling." As part of the AR4 modeling effort, there were dozens of diagnostic studies. NONE, of the results of those were factored into the modeling. Modeling papers (perhaps they should just be called "announcements" since then rarely reference the diagnostic papers and how they addressed the issues raised in them. Of course, there have been diagnostic papers published since the AR4 which also haven't been factored into the models. But I can tell your tired and frustrated already, and noone must even have mentioned to you all the things that haven't been factored into the models.

Ward S. Denker@203,

I saw that "poll" published in EOS also. Kagato should know that I am part of that 97% "consensus". It was very disengenuous.

By the way, Kagato, In case you have not heard the news:

John Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen (NASA) is now a skeptic and did not have very nice things to say about Hansen either. He was responsible for climate research at NASA from 1982-94.

That's it for me on this subject for now.

Ward S. Denker is a gibbering lunatic.

Go read his blog for a minute. He believes that the UN has concocted global warming as part of a huge conspiracy to destroy the world economy and reduce human civilization to pre-industrial technology.

No shit.

The United Nations. Made up exclusively of nation-states which depend on fossil fuels to maintain their economies. Governments which could not exist in anything resembling their current forms without the internal combustion engine. Allied together in a super secret international conspiracy to destroy the very technologies which permit their own existence.

It's time for Ward to explain who's all really behind this. Who's got the secret power and motive to uproot modern civilization? Is it the Club of Rome? The Elders of Zion? The Illuminati? The Reptilians?

#208, There is distinctly anti-capitalist rhetoric within the environmental movement. The third world countries have a history of embracing the idea that they are disadvantaged and exploited, so it should be no surprise that they are seeing this fearmongering as an opportunity to solicit handouts. I don't see an explicit conspiracy, just a lot of chanting and winking. I don't know if you have spent much time with democrat party "community activists", but in my experience the percent that smoke is much higher than in the general population, yet you will seldom hear more vitriol against the tobacco companies. Don't expect these movements to make sense. They don't.

asshole: You're a very superficial thinker, Walton, so I advise you not to embarrass yourself by publicly arguing these details.

You can go and stick your condescending attitude where the sun doesn't shine. I've had enough of being polite in the face of undeserved abuse. Your moniker is, indeed, well-deserved.

And hundreds of millions of Marxists never hurt anyone. Have you a list of war crimes by your local SWP?

They may not have killed anyone personally, but communist and hardline socialist parties in the West over the last fifty years have consistently been apologists for brutal dictatorships around the world - from the Soviet Union to Hugo Chavez. Nor do I subscribe to the fallacious view that Trotskyite Marxists, who disclaim Stalinism, are somehow any "better". Trotsky was a mass murderer too; the fact that he lost the power struggle doesn't make him a hero.

Neither is Marxism a necessarily secular endeavor. See liberation theology, aka Marxist Catholicism.

Bullshit. Marxism = allegiance to the ideas expressed by Marx, who was harshly critical of religion. I am perfectly familiar with the "liberation theology" movement; while they co-opted the Marxist criticisms of capitalism and ideas of class war, they were not followers of Marx.

Nazis were Christians.

As you damn well know (if you don't, you're an idiot), this is a hotly disputed point. Some Nazis professed Christianity. Others (including much of the SS) were adherents of a form of esoteric Germanic neo-paganism, and many were very hostile to Christianity. The reality is that, since the churches were too ingrained and institutionally powerful for the Nazis to destroy, the Nazis co-opted them for their own purposes (as with the state-run "German Christians" Protestant movement) or struck bargains with them (as with his Concordat with the Vatican).

I am not claiming that the Nazis were in any sense rationalists; Hitler and Himmler were into all sorts of esoteric occult woo, and were influenced by occult writers such as Madame Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley. And, of course, they quote-mined Martin Luther and used his anti-semitic rants to great effect. But it's completely ahistorical to see Nazism as a Christian movement. (Christian fascism, insofar as such a thing exists, is much better illustrated by the movements of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal.)

So don't you fucking dare call me a "superficial thinker".

Whoa!

Looky there. Walton gettin' fired up.

Ward S. Stinker
"Denialism' is an word with very ugly connotations, and it's being used by the left for that reason."

We deny that.

Re: asshole (#208)

You could link to it, you know? When I am talking about "dreams of a united world" I don't mean NWO nonsense (an idiotic conspiracy theory I reject), I'm really just talking about the green rhetoric in use by environmentalists. There's evidence of that abound and you need only a Google search to find them. I'll leave that homework to you. I do see how you could have made that leap though, since I wasn't that clear.

I believe my conclusion is fair, but the entirety of the piece is opinion — it is my blog, after all. It was partly meant to be funny (ripping on politicians, calling them 'frightened', etc.) though I admit, my own sense of humor is eccentric.

I will have to cast my ballot for the lizard people, though.

Well, it looks like the poll is over. But we killed it 78%-yes, 8%-maybe, 14%-no. Good job!

They may not have killed anyone personally, but communist and hardline socialist parties in the West over the last fifty years have consistently been apologists for brutal dictatorships around the world - from the Soviet Union to Hugo Chavez.

By your own reasoning, then, you have Nicaraguan and Iraqi blood on your hands for your defenses of Reagan and Bush.

And do tell us how Chavez is a "brutal dictator." He's a dumbass who's got no understanding of what he can gain from an independent media, and this is a troubling sign that could forebode future abuses of power, but he's no war criminal.

Nor do I subscribe to the fallacious view that Trotskyite Marxists, who disclaim Stalinism, are somehow any "better". Trotsky was a mass murderer too; the fact that he lost the power struggle doesn't make him a hero.

Indeed. And that doesn't make your local SWP a gang of murderers. How many Native Americans have died under the wars and policies of US governments? A Republican or Democrat today is just as guilty of those crimes as a modern Trot is of Bolshevik massacres. Or just as innocent. One or the other, either answer is acceptable, Walton, but you have to be consistent.

Bullshit. Marxism = allegiance to the ideas expressed by Marx, who was harshly critical of religion.

This is a uselessly restrictive definition. So if Hugo Chavez accepts a Marxist view of history, but believes in the Yahweh god and proclaims that Jesus was the original socialist, then he is not a Marxist?

Any Jesus Radical who understands herself to be a Christian first and a Marxist second is just wrong, and doesn't get to decide for herself what Christianity and Marxism mean to her?

This is precisely what I meant when I said you are a superficial thinker. Everything is so very black and white.

As you damn well know (if you don't, you're an idiot), this is a hotly disputed point. Some Nazis professed Christianity. Others (including much of the SS) were adherents of a form of esoteric Germanic neo-paganism, and many were very hostile to Christianity.

Then you support the Nuremberg defense: the fault for the Holocaust is all upon the higher-ups, the rest were blamelessly following orders.

Walton, my boy, the Holocaust was physically carried out by German soldiers. The whole damned nation had not turned pagan; that was a conceit of the elites. The rank and file were Christians, particularly Lutherans. "The Nazis" doesn't mean Himmler and his homies. It may make you uncomfortable to say out loud, but it is not at controversial to say that the Holocaust was a Christian missionary work.

#215, There isn't any president in recent memory that doesn't have blood on their hands, although Carter and Ford (I haven't analyzed him closely) may have less than most. They should be seen in historical perspective.

Bullshit. Marxism = allegiance to the ideas expressed by Marx,

This means that Lenin and Trotsky were not Marxists, because they disagreed with Karl on a not-at-all-minor detail: whether communism can arise in a pre-industrial society like 1917 Russia through vanguardism. This is the disagreement that separates Trots and Leninists from other Marxists, particularly anarchists.

Does this put Walton on the side of the Anarchist FAQ? Rather so, but in a fundamentalist sense, since even the anarchists just say that Lenin and Trotsky were bad Marxists, rather than untrue Scotsmen.

#215, There isn't any president in recent memory that doesn't have blood on their hands, although Carter and Ford (I haven't analyzed him closely) may have less than most. They should be seen in historical perspective.

Yeah, because historically, genocide is forgivable.

Think about what you're saying, moron.

Walton's "thinking" again:

"...parties in the West over the last fifty years have consistently been apologists for brutal dictatorships around the world - from the Soviet Union to Hugo Chavez. "

Chavez may be a demagogue and seduced by the cult of his own personality, but he certainly is not a "brutal dictator". He was elected democratically and does not rule by force and deadly intimidation. Calling him something he is not only serves to reinforce the perception to Venezuelans that the US wants to remove by any means necessary.

"So don't you fucking dare call me a "superficial thinker"."

OK... I'll call you a "naive thinker" who swallows wingnut talking points.

#218, "Yeah, because historically, genocide is forgivable". No, it just happened, modern humans are like that. We aren't talking genocide with recent presidents, but collateral damage and net-lives-saved decisions, and restrictions on civil liberties. By these standards recent presidents don't fare poorly compared to say Nixon, Johnson, FDR, Wilson and Lincoln.

Blatavsky & Crowley... that's naughty Walton.

Assata Shakur is not a Marxist.

Shit, Marx is not a Marxist:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.

cluestick: http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/08/01/weekly-quote-marx-on-religion.htm

"Yeah, because historically, genocide is forgivable". No, it just happened, modern humans are like that.

No, it just happened, modern humans are like that.

No, it just happened,

it just happened,

just happened.

#224,

I may have said that clumsily. There is no point in forgiving dead perpetrators, or in visiting their sins upon later generations. The modern human legacy is one of genocide. Hopefully we can get beyond that. But it has no relevance to the discussion of recent presidents.

I don't really want to sidetrack the bus advert discussion, but I feel I have to say this. Ward S. Denker said

The only thing we have to predict climate is computer modeling

No, we have basic physics. CO2 is transparent to light coming from the sun but less transparent to energy leaving Earth. Therefore atmospheric CO2 warms the Earth and an increase in CO2 will increase the warming effect, in the absence of other effects. This has been a non-controversial part of physics for 100 years. Atmospheric CO2 has been known to be increasing for over 40 years, with evidence from multiple sources that it is anthropogenic in origin. In the absence of a major negative feed-back mechanism (and none is known) global warming is inevitable. Indeed, as an agricultural botany student 40 years ago I remember being told to expect global warming by the end of the century.

I have pointed this out on various blogs and asked where denialists take issue with it. The only person who has ever replied in the end admitted he was indulging in wishful thinking. And yes, they are denialists because they refuse to address the main points but instead concentrate on peripheral issues like whether a met station record was a degree out, this year's weather in the US or whether a certain hurricane was really a result of global warming or not.

Regarding the bus adverts, it's quite educational how it gets people upset, but I can agree with the person who said the CBC seemed fair on the issue. I heard some commentary on the London bus ads and got the impression that at least one of the anchor people was completely in favour.

Richard Simons,

I can't believe noone has been able to respond to you. There is no need to deny the direct effects of CO2. They can only explain less than 30% of the recent warming. To explain more you need significant NET positive feedbacks. And the warming in not ievitable if the CO2 net effects are smaller than the natural variation. You must have been hanging out in the wrong places.

We need much better models or better knowledge of solar minima in order to determine the relative attribution of the recent warming to the solar and AGW hypotheses.

I live in Toronto. For the past several years there have been "Bus Stop Bible Study" bus and subway ads on the TTC with passages from the New Testament about the divinity of Jesus. It's nice to see some balance headed our way.

Yeah, I'm glad to see something responding to these. The group that's putting them up has as much right to do so as anyone else, obviously, but it's good to see that the other side will get some representation. On the other hand, apparently the United Church is going to be putting up some ads that say "There probably is a god. Now relax and enjoy your life." So the Atheist Bus Campaign may need to come up with some new slogans.

I'm going to shill a bit here - the ads that bug me the most are actually the recent "www.coolcosmos.net" ads. Not because I object to ads that make note of cool astronomy stuff, but because U of T sold off a real, working observatory (plus the parkland around it) that was doing tons of community education work to a developer, and seem to have replaced it with an ad campaign on the TTC.

There is no point in ... visiting their sins upon later generations.

So if you inherit a fortune that was gained by theft, there's no point in accounting for what was denied to the rightful inheritors.

But it has no relevance to the discussion of recent presidents.

Only because we've developed more efficient methods than genocide.

I live in Toronto. For the past several years there have been "Bus Stop Bible Study" bus and subway ads on the TTC with passages from the New Testament about the divinity of Jesus. It's nice to see some balance headed our way.

Yeah, I'm glad to see something responding to these. The group that's putting them up has as much right to do so as anyone else, obviously, but it's good to see that the other side will get some representation. On the other hand, apparently the United Church is going to be putting up some ads that say "There probably is a god. Now relax and enjoy your life." So the Atheist Bus Campaign may need to come up with some new slogans.

I'm going to shill a bit here - the ads that bug me the most are actually the recent "www.coolcosmos.net" ads. Not because I object to ads that make note of cool astronomy stuff, but because U of T sold off a real, working observatory (plus the parkland around it) that was doing tons of community education work to a developer, and seem to have replaced it with an ad campaign on the TTC.

Freedom of speech is sacred.

Argh, sorry for the double post!

#229, "So if you inherit a fortune that was gained by theft, there's no point in accounting for what was denied to the rightful inheritors."

Exactly, there are no rightful inheritors, they are dead. Modern humans did not come out of east Africa into the rest of Africa, Europe and Asia all the way to Indonesia to find unoccupied land. Home erectus and neanderthalis were there, and those people are gone now.

So take your racist crap and go away.

So take your racist crap and go away.

Hurr. It's racist to note that Native Americans was robbed.

It's racist to note that many black Americans are the descendants of slaves who were never paid for their labor. Also, modern black Americans do not exist: "they are dead."

Yes it is racist. You can't equate modern blacks to those that suffered under slavery, or blame modern non-black esidents, many are descended from similarly oppressed anscesters who didn't arrive here until well after the slavery, in my case the 20th century. Are you saying the blacks should be sent back to Africa, the Europeans to Europe, the Mexicans back south of the border and the "native" americans should inherit the land because they successfully killed all the rightful inheritors?

You can't equate modern blacks to those that suffered under slavery,

I don't need to. It's trivial that the descendants of slaves would be less economically disadvantaged today if their ancestors had not been enslaved, or if upon emancipation had been properly compensated for their work. Modern descendants of slaves are the rightful inheritors of the fruits of their ancestors' labor.

or blame modern non-black esidents, many are descended from similarly oppressed anscesters who didn't arrive here until well after the slavery, in my case the 20th century.

Certainly slaveholding and non-slaveholding families have different degrees of accountability. You're the one who started hyperventilating like a Stormfronter at the mere mention of unpaid debts, as though I'd said all whites were equally guilty.

Your family was still the beneficiary of Jim Crow laws, and you today are still the beneficiary of white privilege. It does no one any good to deny these facts.

Are you saying the blacks should be sent back to Africa, the Europeans to Europe, the Mexicans back south of the border and the "native" americans should inherit the land because they successfully killed all the rightful inheritors?

As you are a profoundly simplistic person, it is no surprise that these are your only imagined remedies. Your knee-jerk racism deserves no comment, except to note that these are your words and not mine.

Hi All,

I'm from Toronto, and my pal Luke sent this into PZ....
I totally agree with PZ, it should be 100% YES!! On occasion the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) will post ads for other religious groups... therefore in the spirit of "freedom of speech" I would hope that people don't get their panties in a bunch over these ads...Equal rights for everyone...am I right ?

Cheers!

#237,

"It's trivial that the descendants of slaves would be less economically disadvantaged today if their ancestors had not been enslaved,"

Have you compared the descendants of slaves with those in Africa that weren't enslaved? I think not.

#238,

What are your rememdies and what are they remedies for and who is to provide these remedies? Let's see how defensible your sense of cross-generational "justice" is, and what your documentation and genetic testing requirements will be.

Have you compared the descendants of slaves with those in Africa that weren't enslaved? I think not.

Racist touchdown and field goal! "Slavery was good for Africans!" Bravo, sir. I'd heard that such crazy racists as you existed in the wild, but I've never caught one before today.

Have you compared the descendants of slaves with those in Africa that weren't enslaved? I think not.

Holy shit.

There is no need to deny the direct effects of CO2. They can only explain less than 30% of the recent warming. To explain more you need significant NET positive feedbacks. - africangenesis

As of course is undisputed. However, since warmer air holds more water vapour, the increase in anthropogenic GHGs (CO2, CH4, N20 and others) can easily account for all the warming, as I have pointed out repeatedly when you try to mislead people in this way.

I think asshole has dealt adequately with your racism on this occasion. It is of course typical of "libertarians" to scream "racism" as a diversionary tactic - I think it must be in chapter 1 of "Libertarian rhetoric for dummies".

#241,

And you said it would be "trivial", apparently you have decided it was, but didn't like the result. What is your plan, is it going to be raced based with genetic testing for the beneficiaries? Will the genetic testing for the cross-generational "guilty"? Or are we going by "identity", because I identify as an African-American and have the peer review evidence to prove it.

KnockGoats@243,

You neglect to mention negative feedbacks as usual. You are right that the GHGs can easily account for all the warming. But you neglect to mention that they can account for several times the warming and that water vapor is also a positive feedback to solar warming. Negative feedbacks are the reason we have less than 1W/m^2 of energy imbalance as of 1998, and the total 20th century temperature increase is only about 0.6 degress C. It is dishonest of you to try to slip the same deceit past us, after this has already been explained to you.

What are your rememdies and what are they remedies for and who is to provide these remedies? Let's see how defensible your sense of cross-generational "justice" is, and what your documentation and genetic testing requirements will be. - africangenesis

Coordinated action to reduce international economic inequality through fairer trade practices, technology transfer, reform of the UN, IMF, World Bank and WTO to give greater power to poor countries, and establishment of an international fund for education and health spending, funded by a carbon tax. In the longer term, work toward one-person-one-vote global direct democracy on decisions with global implications. Within countries, again, coordinated action to reduce socio-economic inequality through progressive taxation, expansion of welfare spending, public ownership of essential services - notably banks, and anti-discrimination legislation. These measures are morally justified on humanitarian grounds alone, but would also serve to redress the injustices due to historical events from which some alive now have benefited and others have suffered. No genetic testing or documentation required.

And you said it would be "trivial"

And it is. Family trees are very complete in America. The courts are already set up to consider claims of stolen property and unpaid debts. What's missing is the political and social will to admit that one group's losses have been another's gains. But KnockGoats's suggestions are also workable.

I identify as an African-American

Doesn't make you any less of a crazy racist. Just a self-loathing one.

AG, why do you identify yourself as Latino/Hispanic on your MySpace page?

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friend…

Ben,

That is because one of my anscestors was oppressed by the Spanish king and converted to Catholocism under the Spanish Inquistion. That anscestor was African too. This intergenerational stuff is messy, but I think #247 has a good plan for straightening it.

I have western European roots, but sometimes, just for fun, I like to identify myself as Asian.

KnockGoat@246,

Why are you doing it on a "country" basis? How is that any fairer than "race"? There are a lot of dictators and corrupt officials that you are giving power to. You will probably create more inequality rather than less, unless you require those governments to reform.

Ben@250,

Now you've got it. Self-identification is the standard. I try to stick to identities and solidarities I actually feel and can back up. "Asian" is so non-specific I'm not sure what you mean. My anscesters from every lineage were black and probably spoke click languages.

Africangenesis reveals himself to be more even of an irredeemable, racist, scientifically illiterate dickweed with every post he makes. Every time you think he's hit rock bottom, he pulls out a shovel and starts digging some more.

"Exactly, there are no rightful inheritors, they are dead. Modern humans did not come out of east Africa into the rest of Africa, Europe and Asia all the way to Indonesia to find unoccupied land. Home erectus and neanderthalis were there, and those people are gone now."
A standard argument from ignorance: "I don't understand how it happened, so it can't be true." Plus, the fact that H. Erectus and Neandertal Man are extinct is a red herring. The very first cat breed that was ever domesticated (from which all domestic cats descend) is now extinct, so does that mean they didn't come from Egypt?

Aaagh, ignore that last sentence! :(

LP@253,

You are miss-reading, let me rephrase it for you. Modern humans found the land occupied when they came out of east Africa. There were neanderthals in Europe and home erectus all the way to eastern Asia and Indonesia. In the rest of Africa, they found home erectus. The fact that H. erectus and neanderthalis are extinct after surviving a couple ices and interglacials is informative.

The very first cat breed from which all domestic cats descend is not extinct, its descendents survive. To the best of our knowledge, those homo erectus and homo neanderthalis that were not in Africa, left no descendants. There is however, some speculation that neanderthal made a contribution or two to the human genome. The jury is out on that.

Dear fellow Atheists,

The time of our resurrection will come soon; in my home country of the Netherlands, some nitwits of religion have actually taken the trouble of starting an "anti-evolution theory" print campaign. Well, let me rephrase this: they will start distributing over 6.5 million copies in February of pamphlets stating that the Evolution theory is just another "belief". A seizable amount of influential Christians have come up with the idea that pre-, middle- and high school children are entitled to or should be eligible for both 'theories': Creation and Evolution.
And the beauty of it all, they will deliver the pamphlets to all households in the Netherlands, unless you've been able to acquire a sticker on your front door that unequivocally states you don't want to receive the pro-Creation pamphlet.
Like they will care!
I personally find it's just frustrating, because apart from the fact that the 'stickers' have long been sold out, the whole idea is just too much: another sign on the wall that Christians are being discriminated in favour of non-believers. What's going on?
But my fellow Atheists, our time will come when pro-creation actions like described above, will give us momentum in finding ways of letting the theists know we're still here, and we're the fuck not dodging!
Come on people – it's our world as well!
I say: Let's start a worldwide initiative to distribute a counter campaign, and let the Spain atheist-buses guide us to resurrecting our scientifically correct attitude towards the origins of life.

Dear fellow Atheists,

The time of our resurrection will come soon; in my home country of the Netherlands, some nitwits of religion have actually taken the trouble of starting an "anti-evolution theory" print campaign. Well, let me rephrase this: they will start distributing over 6.5 million copies in February of pamphlets stating that the Evolution theory is just another "belief". A seizable amount of influential Christians have come up with the idea that pre-, middle- and high school children are entitled to or should be eligible for both 'theories': Creation and Evolution.
And the beauty of it all, they will deliver the pamphlets to all households in the Netherlands, unless you've been able to acquire a sticker on your front door that unequivocally states you don't want to receive the pro-Creation pamphlet.
Like they will care!
I personally find it's just frustrating, because apart from the fact that the 'stickers' have long been sold out, the whole idea is just too much: another sign on the wall that Christians are being discriminated in favour of non-believers. What's going on?
But my fellow Atheists, our time will come when pro-creation actions like described above, will give us momentum in finding ways of letting the theists know we're still here, and we're the fuck not dodging!
Come on people – it's our world as well!
I say: Let's start a worldwide initiative to distribute a counter campaign, and let the Spain atheist-buses guide us to resurrecting our scientifically correct attitude towards the origins of life.

Dear fellow Atheists,

The time of our resurrection will come soon; in my home country of the Netherlands, some nitwits of religion have actually taken the trouble of starting an "anti-evolution theory" print campaign. Well, let me rephrase this: they will start distributing over 6.5 million copies in February of pamphlets stating that the Evolution theory is just another "belief". A seizable amount of influential Christians have come up with the idea that pre-, middle- and high school children are entitled to or should be eligible for both 'theories': Creation and Evolution.
And the beauty of it all, they will deliver the pamphlets to all households in the Netherlands, unless you've been able to acquire a sticker on your front door that unequivocally states you don't want to receive the pro-Creation pamphlet.
Like they will care!
I personally find it's just frustrating, because apart from the fact that the 'stickers' have long been sold out, the whole idea is just too much: another sign on the wall that Christians are being discriminated in favour of non-believers. What's going on?
But my fellow Atheists, our time will come when pro-creation actions like described above, will give us momentum in finding ways of letting the theists know we're still here, and we're the fuck not dodging!
I say: Let's start a worldwide initiative to distribute a counter campaign, and let the Spain atheist-buses guide us to resurrecting our scientifically correct attitude towards the origins of life.

Or maybe it's just me who's frustrated....

no,because its going against all of freedom of religion.making people doubt there religion.,and its going to make muslims,Christians,and everyone who believes in God or "gods" angry.

Tony Byland #259 wrote:

no,because its going against all of freedom of religion.making people doubt there religion

Er ... just exactly how do you define "freedom of religion?" Being free from coming across any criticism or disagreement?

This thread got nasty rather quickly. Back and forth calls of racist...wow.

I don't think either of you is provably racist, not by what was said anyway. Asshole (why you named yourself that, I'll never understand) is trying to follow a chain of logic on the subject of property ownership/inheritance. Trying to decide who owns what based on the fact that their ancestors laid clam to an area and bred on it just gets really messy really quickly.

There aren't any rules to inheritance because there aren't any in nature. We are all still animals — smarter ones who sit at computers and snarl through our teeth at one another with keyboards instead — but animals nonetheless. We trade for resources, we fight over them, and we kill for them. We do all of these in increasingly complex rituals that we delude ourselves into believing is 'civilized.' We're apes with instant communication and the same ancient instinctual need to compete, posture, and threaten. Doesn't that whole back-and-forth just look stupid on the face of it under that light?

And what Africangenesis said isn't racist either. Recognizing that current generations have a better standard of living because their offspring wound up on a continent with significant resources and their ancestors' offspring grew up on a continent with fewer hardly strikes me as 'racist.'

Canis lupus familiaris evolved alongside man, probably ensnared from the wild and forced into obedience originally. By human standards, modern dogs have an improved standard of living to their wild cousins. They're fed, bathed, have access to veterinary care, and live in air-conditioned environments just like we do. There have been dogs kept in deplorable conditions, an insult to our own humanity, and treated as property. By and large most dogs kept as pets are treated as members of the family. What probably started out as a bad situation for Canis lupus has become an overwhelmingly good thing for their ancestors.

Some of our ancestors treated other members of homo sapiens in much the same way, but that doesn't mean that recent generations don't have a generally better standard of living on this continent than they'd have had if their ancestors had never been enslaved. We're all homo sapiens and we've moved on. Most of us, as a species, are free. We identify as clans over trivial differences in our genome and we have the capacity to record and remember our own history. Our ancestors in pre-history were probably equally brutal toward one another (maybe more so) but we don't have much of an emotional attachment to those ancestors because their history is lost. Does that mean we're all racists by recognizing that we've improved our lot in life from the days of hunting and gathering, even though our pre-historic ancestors surely brutalized one another as modern homo sapiens continue to today? Who knows how many instances of slavery existed before we advanced enough to record it. I'd imagine every living human probably has an ancestor that experienced enslavement to other humans.

Food for thought...

Ward S. Denker,

You are too hard on us modern modern humans, the hunter gatherer humans were apparently far more violent than us, even with our world wars. You might be interested in this Pinker talk:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violenc…

regards

AG, the Asian thing was a joke.

Re: Africangenesis (#262)

Thank you for sharing that video, it was interesting. Even without having seen it nor having seen any evidence presented on the subject, I imagined our history was probably like that.

When I don't have anything but my own speculation or opinions to go on, I tend to lace what I say with qualifiers. They're lost on many, it seems, though they're the only way I know of to communicate opinions, facts, and my level of confidence in them. I tend to be very careful about what I say, but I fear most aren't very careful about how they read it. I, myself, am guilty of that and it leads to a lot of misunderstandings and increased hostility.

Straying off the beaten path from that topic, I was recently thinking on my own propensity toward lateral thinking. Sometimes I can't figure out a way to formulate a way to share what's in my head, so I overexplain things to compensate. My wife were watching an excerpt of a talk given by Neil deGrasse Tyson and my wife was irritated by his tendency to overexplain his points, as she's often irritated when I do. I appreciate the subtle nuances of his way of putting things and I suspect he probably has a high capacity for lateral thinking but, perhaps, suffers the same difficulty as I in getting it out to others.

I think it might certainly account for a lot of misapprehension by others of what I'm saying. I am aware that I do have a tendency to think laterally, and I'm also aware that most tend to have difficulty thinking that way. I'm not trying to advance the idea that lateral thinking is better, just that it's different. I've been subject to blind spots of my own while attempting to check the blind spots of others. I'm nearly certain that someone reading this views it as self-centered elitism, and equally certain that any disclaimer to the contrary will be seen as 'denial.' I'm always trying to think two steps ahead to predict the reactions others will have to what I say, perhaps because I lack a capacity to 'get it' that others instinctively possess.

Maybe there's something to just getting it out on the table so that we all don't have to guess at one another's motives, faults, strengths and weaknesses. I'd certainly like te be understood and am always seeking to improve my own understanding of others. Maybe it will do something to help halt these useless cycles of hostility.

no,because its going against all of freedom of religion.making people doubt there religion.,and its going to make muslims,Christians,and everyone who believes in God or "gods" angry.

Wait...

What?

I found this interesting quote somewhere in the thread above "Atheists do not question if there is a god, they know there is almost certainly no god." Isn't that what the Atheist bus ads say? And, what does "almost certainly" mean anyway? A humorous oxymoron. ;>)

I'm impressed that 57% of Canadians are not complete idiots. In America that figure is maybe half that.

Mewonders how this previous poll would fare if restarted and presented after the ads are posted:
"Do you feel any less safe on the TTC after Thursday’s shooting?"

...since Gawd surely won't be riding along with them then, that is.

Asshole (why you named yourself that, I'll never understand) is trying to follow a chain of logic on the subject of property ownership/inheritance. Trying to decide who owns what based on the fact that their ancestors laid clam to an area and bred on it just gets really messy really quickly.

There aren't any rules to inheritance because there aren't any in nature.

Typical libertarian duplicity. When you stand to benefit, then society must at minimum maintain a system of courts that can settle property disputes, and a nightwatchman state that protects your property from theft. When you stand to lose, then there are no laws, we all exist in a primal state of nature, and there's no such thing as justice as long as you've got yours.

The examples I gave, of slavery in the United States and the theft of Native American lands, were carried out by civilizations that recognized laws, courts and property. Despite your and AG's repeated misdirections, I'm not talking about neolithic tribalism that cannot be sorted today. I ask for justice that can be done, by civilizations that recognize the necessity of justice, under standards that were good enough for the powerful to adopt among themselves.

And what Africangenesis said isn't racist either. Recognizing that current generations have a better standard of living because their offspring wound up on a continent with significant resources and their ancestors' offspring grew up on a continent with fewer hardly strikes me as 'racist.'

Thank god someone born into white privilege could come along and tell us that justifying slavery isn't racist. We desperately needed your input to solve this dilemma.

You and AG have tried to excuse slavery as a net good for enslaved people, claiming that reparations would be undeserved. If that hardly strikes you as racist, then you must be a real hit at parties; your privilege must smother the whole room. Then you go on to compare Africans to dogs, insist that they should be happy to be treated as well as dogs, and finish by asserting that we're probably all the descendants of slaves at one time or another in the last million years so there's no reason to remedy 2009 injustices that can be definitively traced to recent policies.

If you're not a white supremacist, you ought to be concerned, because you sound exactly like one.

Re: asshole (#269)

I believe I was exceedingly clear before (#264). It seems exceedingly obvious to me that you're suffering from some sort of delusion. You repeatedly misapprehend the points of others. I tried to be a peacemaker between the two of you, but you responded with viciousness and he responded favorably. Which of you are we to take is in the wrong on this?

I made no justification for slavery, and anyone who read what I wrote can see that. I do think it's wrong to hold the belief that the great, great grandchildren of people that did commit such atrocities should be held accountable for the actions of ancestors long dead. If you believe that there are freedoms withheld from blacks today, illustrate them and I'll probably agree with you (assuming you're not pulling said issues out of your ass) that they should be addressed.

Nobody excused (a subtle distintion from justification) slavery either, it was a deplorable action, but the perpetrators are dead. According to Wikipedia, the Civil War resulted in 620,000 dead soldiers and an indeterminate number of dead civilians. The price of freedom was paid in the economic destruction of the south in the blood of free men and tyrants. The civil rights movement wiped away the remaining inequalities, didn't it?

I didn't compare Africans to dogs. I compared canis lupus familiaris to homo sapiens sapiens, our species a distinction that seems to have been lost on you. I can't tell if you were being intentionally disingenuous, but it surely seems so. We're all the descendants of an extremely violent peoples. Every one of us is probably the descendant of someone who was enslaved by another, the children of women captured in tribal warfare and raped.

Contrary to some notion you appear to have, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I've never been to college. I've got the same basic public education that we've all got access to. Where's the inequality? You assume that, probably due to my level of self-education and literary verve. You assume that I'm white, just as you assumed Africangenesis was. And you had the audacity to call him a self-loathing racist because he didn't fit into the box you wanted to put him. The fact that you're trying to put anyone into a racial box so that you can ignore their opinion makes me come awfully close to rescinding my assertion that you are probably not a racist. It's your attitude which is deplorable here, not ours.

We're all the same species and we're all in this together. Dwelling on the actions of our ancestors, long dead, gets us nowhere unless we choose to not learn from their mistakes.

Re: asshole (#269)

And, because I wasn't clear on this, the only thing you know about me is what I've written, and the only thing you can deduce from that with any fair degree of certainty is that I'm educated. By presuming that I've come from a background of "white privilege" you're basically saying that you don't believe that an educated person such as myself could possibly be black, hispanic, native American, etc. Which of us harbors prejudice?

#269,

I called you a racist, because I could see a mile away where you were coming from. You can't make your points without mischaracterizing and intentionally misunderstanding the points you are addressing. You assume that all Europeans were privileged beneficiaries of slavery and empire. Get some historical perspective. Most Europeans were oppressed also. Even at the time of the first WWI the nutritional status of the lower classes was much lower than the upper classes. The upper classes used them as cannon fodder. When they saw the American farm boys come over, they thought that the Americans must be race of "officers", they were so much taller. You shouldn't judge people by the color of their skin, and you should visit the sins of a minority in the past on all of those alive today. There are enough injustices among the living to be addressed. There are many still alive today that suffered under the conscription of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon that should be given reparations, because we consider intergenerational issues where neither the victims nor the perpetrators are alive today, and where the impacts of the past are far outweighed by the consequences of intervening decisions by the living.

Correction: "because we consider intergenerational issues" should read "BEFORE we consider intergenerational issues"

It is of course typical of "libertarians" to scream "racism" as a diversionary tactic - I think it must be in chapter 1 of "Libertarian rhetoric for dummies".

You can fuck off. I have never labelled anyone here as "racist". Indeed I try to avoid the term.

However, I will say, since you bring it up, that it is inherently collectivist, if not racist, to assert that modern-day private property is somehow illegitimate, and that we should feel guilty about owning and enjoying our property, because our far-distant predecessors in title may have forcibly dispossessed Native Americans/Aborigines/Saxons/Celts/some other group.

Human beings are individuals. We are not defined by the colour of our skins, nor our national origins, nor our allegiance to any kind of group, "community" or culture. Race is just an arbitrary social distinction. It is ludicrous, and inherently racist, to assert that modern-day people of European descent somehow bear some kind of guilt, or owe some sort of debt, to people of non-European descent because of what happened between their ancestors. This is why I am opposed - to take an example - to Kevin Rudd (Australian PM)'s decision to "apologise" to indigenous Australians for the way they were treated by white settlers. It rests on an inherently racist assumption, viz. the idea that one person is somehow morally responsible for the crimes of another person of the same race or national origin.

Likewise, I'm opposed to the idea of apologising, or paying reparations, for slavery and the slave trade. I have never enslaved anyone, nor advocated the enslavement of anyone. Why, then, do I allegedly owe some sort of debt to a person who happens to be descended from slaves (but has not himself ever been a slave)?

In the end, the solution to racism is - contrary to popular belief - not government action to "redress the balance" by treating people from traditionally disadvantaged ethnic backgrounds more favourably. Indeed, such a policy is itself racist, since it discriminates on the ground of race; it also, in practical terms, breeds more disaffection and resentment.

Rather, the solution to racial inequity is free-market capitalism. A free market separates economic efficiency from irrelevant factors; as Milton Friedman pointed out, a man who buys a loaf of bread doesn't know the racial origin of the man who grew the wheat. Likewise, racial discrimination is a disadvantageous trait in a free market. If a businessman refuses to sell to black customers, or employ black workers, his pool of potential customers and employees is reduced - reducing his profits and increasing his labour costs, and making him less competitive in the marketplace.

the solution to racial inequity is free-market capitalism

This bon mot is an excellent reminder of why I keep ol' Walton in the killfile and regret every time I peek. Do you guys have Friedman cryogenically preserved in the Fantasyland castle?

Sven#275,

Is that dismissive concept your idea of substance. I've noticed the progressive/anarchist sect is particularly prone to the head-in-the-sand "ostrich" response. Do you have anything to offer besides trying to appear cool in front of your peers?

KnockGoats,

I apologise for telling you to fuck off in my post above (#274). It was uncalled for. I've been slightly annoyed by some people's comments lately, but that's no excuse for me attacking you.

Is that dismissive concept your idea of substance.

No. It's my idea of trying to appear cool by being dismissive.
Do you think that a statement like "the solution to racial inequality is free-market capitalism" deserves a substantive response? If so, I will leave it to people who enjoy thinking about such stuff. My role around here is to diligently attempt to always appear virtually cool in virtual front of my virtual peers by means of dismissive wisecracks and attempts at witty sarcasm.
What's your?

Go change your pants Walton.

Re: Sven (#278)

I cannot speak on behalf of Walton or Africangenesis, but I will lend my view on this.

You're trying to look at it from the perspective of a straight-forward answer. The answer is actually a product of lateral logic, a method of deduction of answers which most are not familiar with.

Any law may have a downside. I'm not talking about loopholes or poorly-worded laws, though. Those are certainly downsides, but they're also arrived at with simple deduction. A lateral downside would be a cost of changing the behavior of people, something outside the actual scope of the law or its application.

Drug and alcohol prohibition have few direct negative consequences. Lost revenue for the industry is, to many, an acceptable tradeoff for not having to deal with the societal problems that arise from use of these substances.

Lateral logic helps us to find additional consequences of the law. Prohibition creates a black market, one which is defended with extreme violence. It ends up ensnaring innocents — otherwise peaceful, law-abiding citizens who occasionally imbibe substances harmful only to themselves, and places them in prison, where they won't get treatment for their addiction. Innocents are killed — incidentals to gang shootings. Prohibition drives up the price of drugs/alcohol and makes criminals of the consumers themselves, who may burglarize homes (and do violence to homeowners who resist) to support their artificially expensive habit. Black markets have no system of accountability, so the products they produce may be more harmful to the imbiber (containing impurities such as rat poison or ground up glass) than a product produced legitimately — which leads to further strain on our medical system.

I've never touched a drug in my life and have only consumed alcohol on rare occasions. I don't think anyone else should use drugs either, but I do believe that the incidental costs of drug prohibition are more damaging to our society (murders and other violent crimes) than the harm a few individuals inflict on themselves.

Sven#278,

"Do you think that a statement like "the solution to racial inequality is free-market capitalism" deserves a substantive response?"

As a mere assertion, "No", but it in context "yes", and there was some context. Walton noted that the market mechanism is color blind. Combine that with his argument against trying to remedy wrongs from generations ago, and your flip response as if the statement was merely asserted is not good faith.

Ward S. Denker,

"I cannot speak on behalf of Walton or Africangenesis"

But we will be able to speak on behalf of Sven, if he killfiles us. I'm sure I can imagine what he would say, and tear it all to pieces.

I can find nothing with which to disagree in Mr. Denker's #280. I must confess, though (at the risk of appearing less than cool), that I am missing its relevance to Walton's dogmatic little assertion.

Re: Sven (#283)

Using lateral logic and following the chain to its natural conclusions, one can arrive at the answer Friedman had.

A 'market' is an abstract medium for an exchange of goods, a model for describing the behavior of a lot of people.

I'll submit that it's a given that most Americans are not racially prejudiced (thankfully our society has improved greatly on that front), have a natural sense of justice, of fairness, and of right and wrong. This affects how we interact with the 'market.' If you contend that society is majorly prejudiced (more than 50% of consumers) the whole chain of logic fails and laws must remain in place.

I, personally, don't care who makes the products I purchase or services I consume (so long as they are produced legally and harm nobody), and neither do the vast majority of my contemporaries. A consumer's primary consideration is price — who provides the cheapest pair of shoes for the level of quality I can afford? Which store gives me a discount on an iPod? This is the model by which Wal-Mart has expanded a vast empire and thrived, by providing their own warehousing of products and purchasing at wholesale levels, they assume the risks and customers profit by reduced prices. There are lateral downsides of Wal-Mart's business model too. For instance, the exploitation of cheap labor from developing countries such as China, but that problem is also a lateral downside of minimum wage laws, something beyond the scope of this discussion.

Lots of things affect consumption, but price is king. Other major factors are things like a company's public image and branding. If a company develops a reputation for doing underhanded things, so long as they don't have a monopoly, such as discriminating against minorities, the public punishes them with boycotts (these don't actually have to be organized to be effective, and spreading the word that a business discriminates isn't libel or slander, so long as it's the truth).

When companies must compete with one another, they cannot afford to lose market share to their competitors or they face going out of business. The more competition increases, the more a company must focus on its primary objective: profit. That has a positive lateral benefit of mainstreaming the company's values to match the values of most of the customers, the better the fit the better their profit margins.

This scales fractally. Even if there's a major company in a southern state who routinely discriminates against minorities, they face the loss of their business to competition both within the state and outside it (larger companies with a presence in multiple states). Even if the citizenry wants to maintain the status quo (supporting the prejudiced values of the company) profit is still the overriding concern and outcompeting the company will result in increased pressure to conform to the least discriminatory pratices.

A company who employs minority workers in such a state will be able to compete with the incumbents on the cost of labor alone: they'd be cheaper to employ and the end price of the product will naturally be lower. As competition on price escalates and the new company gains market share, the salaries of workers will go up when the tipping point is reached (they have so much market that the discriminating competitior folds). They can then raise prices and their workers will enjoy wage equality (if it's a particularly competitive company, they'll earn better than the average wage).

There are ways corporations can "cheat" when the number of providers of a good or service are small, but it becomes dramatically more difficult to do so when laws favor increases in competition.

That's the general idea.

Ward S. Denker,

You make it all sound so complicated. Markets are an emergent phenomenon that occurs in human societies where people have goods or services to exchange. The prices change to bring demand and supply into balance in the short term, in the long term supply increases or decreases depending on the costs of the inputs for producing the supply. The subjective values of consumers synthesized in the relative prices of various good and services, and they determine what gets produced rather than some central planner's values.

Capitalism overlays upon this the recognition that through deferral of consumption, some production can be devoted to improving productivity and the amount of overall goods and services available.

The abstract mechanisms are race neutral. The abstract ideal can be distorted by government policies or high information costs, or externalities, such as behaviors which impose costs on others, such as pollution.

Don't encourage him Sven. See, now I have to change my ruby slippers into muck boots.

Re: Africangenesis (#285)

The meat of what I said was only 5 paragraphs short (that's pretty brief, for me!). I tried to avoid terminology outside the vernacular (knowing my audience is not just Sven and few are economists).

I try... :P

Re: Patricia (#286)

You're welcome to correct the flaws in my logic, otherwise I'm inclined to snark (shush, the adults are talking).

I'm not here to correct logic.
My job is to make ignorant slutty remarks, quote the bible, mind the trebuchet and twirl.

Re: Patricia (#289)

quote the bible

By this, you mean, "quote all the best parts of the bible" (i.e., the ones that make Christians squirm trying to defend), right?

Ward =/= adult. Just an L-word idiot.

"Just an L-word idiot." He's a lesbian?

Re: Nerd of Redhead (#291)

You're welcome to discredit me, or do you lack the testicular fortitude?

It's quite obvious that fear and ignorance drives you. You're well aware that any argument you'd give would be eviscerated in front of your peers, so you'll stick to comfort zones, like ad hominems and invectives. Learning something from a Libertarian would so offend you that you'd have to commit suicide on the spot to salvage your honor as a good little liberal twit, wouldn't it?

Why Nerd, look he twitted you. *Pffft*

Ward, it took me 15 minutes to determine that libertarianism is a morally bankrupt political philosophy twenty years ago. I don't argue with people who are so dumb they can't see the problems. And that includes you, you intellectual light weight.

Re: Nerd of Redhead (#295)

Well, I see two options for you then. You can take the time to educate yourself and relieve yourself of ignorance, or you can live in you sad little state of denial, forever insulated by your own willful stupidity from learning anything new.

I know which of the two you've chosen before I wasted keystrokes on you. I choose the road less traveled by, it has made all the difference.

Nerd of Redhead#295,

"twenty years ago", how convenient. That makes it less subject to review. I assume you don't remember the finer points of your "determination", yet you are sure it was right. It must have been right a priori, since you seem to assume that subsequent evidence couldn't over turn it. It must have been impressive. Too bad you didn't publish.

Ward, I have no respect for your intellect, and I will not let you choose my paths. You are not worthy to do so, and never will be. You need to remove the stick from your butt and quit dissing other people, including Patricia.

Re: Nerd of Redhead (#298)

Q.E.D.

Dissing Patrica'OM#289 might be redundant: "My job is to make ignorant slutty remarks, quote the bible, mind the trebuchet and twirl." She obviously doesn't intend to be taken seriously. A bot perhaps? She might not pass the turing test.

Walton wrote:

This is why I am opposed - to take an example - to Kevin Rudd (Australian PM)'s decision to "apologise" to indigenous Australians for the way they were treated by white settlers. It rests on an inherently racist assumption, viz. the idea that one person is somehow morally responsible for the crimes of another person of the same race or national origin.

As an Australian* I'll point out that I, for one, am proud Kevin Rudd apologised. It needed to be done, and the greater proportion of the Australian public supported it - it was one of the reasons the Rudd government won office; democracy in action.

That aside, I'll also point out he apologised for what is called the 'Stolen Generation' rather than generic mistreatment.

Lastly, he was apologising for the role the government played. I guess if helps if you look at the government of a nation as a continuum rather than a succession (or alternation, since we're pretty much two-party as well) of independent entities.

That's my take anyway, and - somewhat unusually for me - it seems to one I share with the majority of my countryfolk.

*Not sure where the others - John Morales, Kel, Clinteas, Bride of Shrek etc.- are, but it's Sunday morning here; maybe they're all at Church...

Ward say something? It must have been stupid.

Thanks for the concern, I'm still glowing from passing the test in September. Speaking to me in a condescending manner is a perfect way to show off your sexism. I'm immune to it, I used to be a christian.

Patricia'OM#303,

Are you blaming your lack of substance on your sex? What a mysogynist you are. Take some personal responsibility.

Africangenesis,

You're entering a world of shit. Run away now and you might be lucky.

Wowbagger#305,

You're right, I should just ignore her, pending substance.

Fair enough. History will show that I tried to save him, but he did not listen. Just like Caesar and the Ides of March.

My sex has nothing to do with it. Your judgement of my substance is meaningless. You may call me a misogynist until you exhaust yourself for all I care. But Wowbagger is right, there are others here who care very much about that subject, and you would do yourself a favor to drop it.

AG, I'm very disappointed in you. Where are your standards now?

Patricia, there was a reason why I killfiled AG shortly after he showed up. Seems that I was right in my judgment.

Ben,

My standards are down the tubes. I can't believe I've sunk so low. I've called someone a racist and someone else a misogynist. I shouldn't have responded to the name calling, but it comes so easily at this blog. I apologize. From now on, I'll attempt to characterize the post or the concept and not the person. I hope.

Re: Africangenesis (#311)

Even a rose has thorns. When one goes sniffing about in business not their own, one should expect a prick.

Janine - As usual, you were right. ;o)

Ward, AG, it doesn't take much to realize that libertarianism and communism (well talked about when I was an undergraduate) are the opposite ends of a political spectrum, and both are morally bankrupt. Libertarianism forgets the common good, and communism forgets individual accomplishment. The forgetting either is the moral bankruptcy. To not be morally bankrupt requires what is considered Liberal under present descriptions of American political theories, where both the common good and individual accomplishment are considered. I don't argue with ideologues, as they don't listen. I learned that lesson almost 40 years ago.

Re: Nerd of Redhead (#314)

The ignorance comes out.

The polar opposites are, as follows:

Fascism (extreme right) and Communism (extreme left)
Libertarianism and statism are the opposites.

Or, in a diagram:

Anarchy (top)
^
|
Libertarianism
|
Communism <- (D) <--|--> (R) -> Fascism
v
|
Statism
|
Dictatorship

The most extreme form of libertarianism is anarchy (the traditional meaning of the word — no government, not necessarily the vernacular form meaning 'chaos'), but most libertarian are more centrist minarchists, preferring some government but recognizing that the excesses of state lead to ever-increasing loss of freedom.

Usually the worst statist governments are dictatorships — where absolute power rests not with representative government but with one sole leader. (Hitler, Stalin, etc.)

In the center square are, not surprisingly, centrists. They can be all over the board, picking and choosing which elements of state they accept and reject.

You can even see the evidence in the word itself, statism is where most of your 'rights' belong to the state. Libertarianism is the polar opposite where your rights belong to you (liberty).

So, by that diagram, a statist right (the spectrum neocons are on) is headed toward fascism. The statist left is the spectrum you're on (socialist heading toward communist).

There are left and right libertarians (small 'l') too, who usually focus on issues like the legitimacy/illegitimacy of property rights.

You should envision that diagram as cross-shaped.

Clarifying, the reason that fascism and communism are polar opposites (and not libertarianism and communism) is because they focus on wealth distribution.

In a fascist society the structure of law concentrates all of the wealth in the hands of the ruling class. In a communistic society the wealth is intended to be distributed equally among all.

You're mixing the social and economic aspects, which is what is confusing your view of it.

Wowbagger @301, I too think Rudd's apology was appropriate (though I also consider it was symbolic), and generally agree with your assessment - it was the Government apologising for past injustice.

-- OOT
PS Sunday mornings are squash practice for me, I only just got back home and I'm replentishing my vital fluids with a cool one :)
I do drive past the Lutheran church at Eden Valley on the way home, and usually see all the old people trudging out of church...
PPS One of the squashies at the club is a Pastor - we call him the "faster Pastor"

--
PPS, here is the apology, Walton:
"[...] We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

[...]"

AG, patronising Patricia only shows your ignorance; she's Patricia OM.

John,

I was already aware of the 'OM, Patricia got it "for generally refreshing snarkiness". Not a high standard. Sometimes it gets a little stale, and amounts to expressing an uninformed opinion. I assume PZ would have felt differently, if he disagreed with it, or if she targeted him.

AG:

I was already aware of the 'OM, Patricia got it "for generally refreshing snarkiness". Not a high standard.

Yeah, Pharyngula and PZ don't have high standards for an OM - pretty much anyone will do.

Heh. We know you think your discernment is superior to that of your interlocutors, so no surprise here.

AG, you are beginning to unravel. Sad to see it.

Yeah, Pharyngula and PZ don't have high standards for an OM - pretty much anyone will do.

Duh.

My bad. I should have been more impressed.

Did Ward acknowledge he is wrong? If not, then we have nothing to say to one another. He is a fool and a tool. Maybe with age, he will learn wisdom. But I'm not holding my breath.

A Chimp, a Slut and a Nerd, O my!

Um, was there a topic or something to this thread? I forget...

Oh yeah, no atheist bus signs here in Oz, but lots of publicity on the TV. Heh.

/lurk

Ward, starting with your first post here you've been a smug dick. AG, you actually made Ward seem reasonable.

The smartest person in the room is rarely the self-righteous douchenozzle who's acting like it. Call that friendly advice.

Now you're just pissing on the people who make this a blog a joy to lurk at. Nice work.

Obviously neither of you like it here. And I doubt liberals are going to learn much from a libertarian who shows up on the blog of a 'godless liberal' to call them 'twits'. Well, ok, i did learn something. The regulars tend to be smart and funny and likable. You two? Not so much.

/rant

Oaksterdam,

5 of the 9 threads you've posted in have "Molly" in the title. You appear to be here for a social club, not a science blog. We are discussing ideas in a place where they may be challenged. Hopefully, you can learn from someone, even if he or she isn't the smartest one in the room. Perhaps you can even learn more from someone you disagree with than someone you agree with. Steel is forged in fire. If people like me didn't stick around, you would continue to think that people you disagree with were driveby trolls pasting from a script. I suspect there are a number of people here, not the regulars, who weren't aware that there was an intellectual right that could defend its positions, and had an alternative to a centrally planned command and control society. Having a frustratingly challenging and good response to every point your friends make is not self righteousness, it is just having the discipline to have challenged oneself before being challenged by others, and so knowing the lay of ones own land. Perhaps the smartest in the room is not the one with the answers, but the one with the most incisive questions.

oaksterdam, thanks. Nice to hear one of the (near) silent majority!

AG, did you note my attempt to get somewhat on topic @325?

Pleasant as it is to see you condescend and patronise other commenters, as you said, it's about ideas. Ideas on-topic might even be more meritworthy than explaining Pharyngula to one of the lurkers here.

So, whaddayareckon re Aussie non-bus ads? Good, bad, indifferent?

Yes, I saw #325. Weak attempt to get back on topic. #328 was better. I voted: "Maybe, but it depends on the wording of the advertisement". Which is the same standard I presume is applied to religious ads, i.e., there should be no discrimination.

You should envision that diagram as cross-shaped.

Not at all, no. You should envision it as square -- as a mathematical diagram where the x axis is economic freedom and the y axis is social freedom.

Like this.

You, Mr Thinker, are probably in a corner of the square.

Re: David Marjanović, OM (#330)

Indeed, I would have drawn a diamond, but ASCII art in a comment box isn't particularly effective.

Sad to see that Nerd is just ignoring what I had to say. No matter how old you get you never have to stop learning, and it's OK to admit you were wrong and learned something from someone else.

Oaksterdam,

I've been insulted routinely since I started posting here. I ask, politely, for a little civility and the attacks get worse. I retaliate and everyone says I'm a douche for it. Make up your minds, please. You can't have it both ways. We can have a civil discussion or we can have a vitriol-spewing match, but don't expect that you should not be treated in kind to how I am treated.

Calling me a "self-righteous douchenozzle," funny as it might be, is simply admitting that you have nothing to add to the discussion but invectives and that you've already conceded defeat. Consider that.

I am perhaps not the best communicator when it comes to things I'm passionate and knowledgable about. I chalk it up to being misunderstood because not everyone feels that way about me.

Ward S. Denker,

I think I am the one that was being called the name with mysogynistic overtones. "douchenozzle"? Unless he intended it as a compliment, he had better run away now, he is going to be in a world of hurt.

At the risk of steering yet another thread into the perilous straits of liber*****ism, I just wanted to thank Mr. Denker, sincerely, for the Econ 101 thing back there in #284. It all sounds so nice and logical: because ideally markets are blind to skin color, ideally functioning markets will erase all race-based discrimination. You have filled in the logic behind Walton's phrase.
But my reaction is the same as my original reaction to Walton: Fantasyland. People--real people--simply don't behave in the way your market assumes. Real people are ignorant. Real people are stupid. Real people just don't care. Real people are greedy. Real people are bone-deep racists. Real people are each uniquie. For documentation I'd suggest a Saturday afternoon field trip to your nearest real Wal-Mart.

Indeed, I would have drawn a diamond,

No, it's not a diamond. The tips of your diamond are the centers of the sides of the square, not the corners. People like Sarah Failin' would be outside your diamond because they are in a corner of the square.

but ASCII art in a comment box isn't particularly effective.

It is feasible, however: the <pre> tag is allowed.

Sven DiMilo,

I guess we are lucky we aren't real people. 8-)

It turns out it doesn't matter how rational the people are, the market synthesizes their subjective values and coordinates production to meet those values in a self-organizing fashion that exceeds the ability of central planning to represent their values. They may make the choices that the all seeing scientific planner would make, or achieve some global optimimum. But people are "satisficed" with an efficiency that no cumbersome parasitic beaurocracy could hope to match.

I assume PZ would have felt differently, if he disagreed with it, or if she targeted him. - africangenesis

PZ just counts the votes for OMs. Are you saying he would cheat if someone disagreed with him? (As I have, vehemently on occasion - and I still got an OM.)

Re: David Marjanović, OM (#330)

I missed the last line. No, I am closer to the axis, but probably a bit right because of economics.

The problem with using "The Political Compass" over the one I drew is that it combines social and economic positions, which is fine for many discussions but it muddies the issues.

For the purposes of discussion here, I recognize that most of our disagreements will be over economics, not social policy. On most issues, Democrats are social libertarians, it's majorly economics we'd be arguing about. Aside from a few issues (like gun rights) most of us will agree on those. Removing them entirely from the graph and drawing it to focus on economics alone, we arrive at one like I drew.

I, personally, am in favor of almst no corporate protectionism (corporate welfare, bailouts, tariffs, etc.) but some restrictions on corporate power (i.e. anti-trade law — with reasonable limitations on the application of it). The right libertarians are all about property rights and some of them are so far right that they look just like the characterization I've seen from several here "Republicans who want to smoke pot." That's probably ignoring a lot of social issues though. Republicans are far too statist (as are Democrats) for my tastes.

My general take is that individuals should have as much social and economic freedom allowable whilst supporting government intervention where government has proven to be effective. On economics I lean toward government intervention wherever it actually works (and has little to no collateral damage in the form of negative externalities). That naturally puts me on the libertarian end of the scale because government shows it to be ineffective (and even harmful) on a lot of things it has attempted.

There are reasons that I've been characterized as "mild." It's also why I'm annoyed when someone starts a sentence with "every Libertarian I ever met was..." because, as you can see, there are an awful lot of takes on Libertarianism. Mine is more centrist than most and the majority of us are probably more like me than they are extremist nuts.

I stand corrected. I see now. I thought those comments on the right were PZ's comments, so I hadn't noticed that a voting paradigm was being adhered to. So those comments on the right are comments of others, selected for some reason?

Sven,

It's useless. Few of them will ever check their abstract theory against real-world evidence, historical or contemporary. (Never ceases to amaze me how much they sound like state Communists with a few terms changed.)

(As I have, vehemently on occasion - and I still got an OM.)

And let's not forget about truth machine (well, not while we're on this topic).

But people are "satisficed" with an efficiency that no cumbersome parasitic beaurocracy could hope to match. - Africangenesis

Yeah, all those people living in slums, begging on the streets or slaving for a pittance sure look "satisficed". You smug, callous, sanctimonious arsehole.

Congrats Knockgoats, I must have missed your winning. ;o)

I figured out why they Just Don't Get It. It's this misguided certainty in their own predictions of the emergent behavior of population-level behavior. (It's like Asimov's Psychohistory concept.) My limited understanding of history suggests to me the opposite conclusion: that large groups of people behave in irrational and inherently unpredictable ways all the time.
Also, they don't seem to acknowledge to importance of beginning conditions; like, turn on the Free-Market Ideal right now and inevitably all the existing racial discrimination disappears?
As it happens, I was at a Wal-Mart yesterday afternoon. It's seriously educational.

KnockGoats#340,

Of course I meant them. Hundreds of millions of them have been lifted out of poverty with less than two decades of liberalization by India and China, after socialism had failed them for decades. Some things take time, you can't produce wealth by fiat, although I do think the world economy would benefit if the US judiciously printed money in the right way, since capacity is currently underutilized.

Too bad economic freedom wasn't tried earlier, I assume your attitude means it has spoiled some grand coercive plan of yours.

Rev. BigDumbChimp@163,
Hey, no need to apologise! On the contrary, grateful thanks. I've bookmarked this page so I can refer the likes of N. Schuster here in future.

335 is a completely unjustified claim. Among others.

Sven DeMilo#342,

Tsk, tsk. Walmart is one of the mechanisms by which wealth is being transferred to the third world. You are not supposed to oppose that. You aren't going to spout some protectionist apologia now are you?

The comments on the right are a sampling of the votes. Anyone can vote. Most people vote with a suggestion as to why they choose their nominee.

Cuttlefish is the most nominated commenter.

And Kim gets it, by virtue of a population enclosed and fully segregated. Poor fools. - Crudely Wrott

I doubt it. I'd bet that the Kim dictatorship does not last another decade; and that when it goes, there will be very few who regret its demise. Kim Jong Il is not likely to last long after his recent stroke, and such family dictatorships rarely last for more than two generations.

Stephen Wells,

Your rejection of #335 is so blanket as to be meaningless. How do you explain markets preceding capitalism by a dozen or more centuries? How do you explain black markets? What less-than-omniscient central planner do you hope to serve?

Re: David Marjanović, OM (#330)

I took the time to go through the test, here's my result. As predicted, I'm not particularly far from the axis, slightly right on economics.

I'm obviously not an extremist of any stripe, so why all the hostility? Even being slightly 'right' on anything is too right for this crowd?

AG, I'm obviously not opposed to Wal-Mart enough to actually boycott it. I am consumed by liberal guilt, though, in the aftermath, so there's that. I think protectionism is an option that's pretty much defunct anymore, except in some particular cases. I have nothing against poor people in China making a living. I'll admit I'd like to live in a fairer world. My problems with Wal-Mart are more environmental than social or economic in any event.
But I wasn't suggesting a Wal-Mart visit as an exercise in economics or sociology or environmental science anyway. I meant it more anthropologically and more misanthropically: go to observe the customers, the real people that you think will act rationally and for the common good en masse.
Fantasyland.

Hundreds of millions of them have been lifted out of poverty with less than two decades of liberalization by India and China, after socialism had failed them for decades. - Africangenesis

India was of course never socialist - the vast majority of its wealth always remained in private hands, and it remained part of the capitalist world-system. It did impose import tariffs behind which its industries could develop (as has every country that has ever developed industrially), and poured vast sums into public education. This put it in a position where it could indeed benefit a significant minority by opening up its economy. The majority remain extremely poor, and malnutrition is very widespread. The likelihood is that this will remain so, as the rich corner a larger and larger share of resources, including the land; but India's well-entrenched democratic institutions may prevent this.

China was indeed socialist, although as it was a very brutal dictatorship it was a form of socialism I abhor. The key reform was Deng's return of land title to the peasants in 1978, of which I completely approve - as I do land reform anywhere that assigns "land to the tiller" and ensures that this remains the case by restrictions on land markets. China of course remains a largely centrally-planned economy, and as such has shown quite remarkable growth, although with heavy social and environmental costs. We will see in the next few years the outcome of the policy of reintegration into the capitalist world-system: much depends on whether it can now generate sufficient domestic demand to cope with the slump in export demand. My hunch is that it cannot, and will suffer severe disruption.

Too bad economic freedom wasn't tried earlier, I assume your attitude means it has spoiled some grand coercive plan of yours.

So when and where was this "libertarian" utopia where everyone was "satisficed"?

I do indeed believe that coercion is sometimes necessary, as of course do you, but unlike you, I'm a democrat: I believe everyone should have an equal say in when and where it is applied.

apologists for brutal dictatorships around the world - from the Soviet Union to Hugo Chavez. - Walton

Chavez has some authoritarian tendencies, but he has been elected and re-elected in elections certified free and fair by international observers. Opposition parties operate openly and recently won control of several states in regional elections, and defeated a Chavez-backed referendum. The vast majority of the Venezuelan media are anti-Chavez. There are no political prisoners; even those who organised the coup against him remain at liberty. To call his government a "brutal dictatorship" is a barefaced lie.

My general take is that individuals should have as much social and economic freedom allowable whilst supporting government intervention where government has proven to be effective. On economics I lean toward government intervention wherever it actually works (and has little to no collateral damage in the form of negative externalities).

Of course, almost everyone here agrees with you on that -- the differences lie in where people think "government has proven effective" and where "government intervention [...] actually works". :-)

Interesting results on your test. And my sympathies, because there's probably no politician that represents you even approximately.

Of course I meant them. Hundreds of millions of them have been lifted out of poverty with less than two decades of liberalization by India and China, after socialism had failed them for decades.

What is it exactly that you call "socialism"? Would you call the economic policies of both Maoist China and the contemporary EU "socialist"? Because... that the former has failed says little about the latter.

I'd bet that the Kim dictatorship does not last another decade; and that when it goes, there will be very few who regret its demise.

I fear there'll be lots who'll regret its demise, because they're brainwashed by being kept in ignorance.

Re: Sven DiMilo (#351)

You see, you're illustrating a "shades of gray" approach to your interaction with Wal-Mart. I suppose that, all things being equal, if a competitor of Wal-Mart sells an identical good that you desire at a comparable price, you'd shop at the competitor instead? You probably avoid Wal-Mart whenever you can, don't you?

While price is everyone's primary concern (especially in this economy), there are overriding concerns people apply to the market. In your case, you illustrate a slight aversion to Wal-Mart on social grounds (you discomfort with exploitation of international labor as opposed to local labor) and more of an aversion on environmental grounds.

Would it stand to reason that there are others like you, who make similar decisions in the market for similar reasons? It's in Wal-Mart's best interest to try and pursue all customers, which will cause them to adapt (over time) to a point of view which is closer to yours over time, provided they continue to have competition over price (which is why you probably still shop there sometimes).

This is the synthesis of ideas AG was talking about. To affect corporate America, you need only protect competition (through law), avoid creating laws that create behavioral externalities (protectionism), and let the market do the work. It doesn't require anything as extreme as boycotting (a black and white perspective) to drive business to behave as you'd like them to. It just requires market equality and an informed society.

I'm all about shades of grey. Yes, I avoid Wal-Mart and went there yesterday for specific reasons.

It just requires market equality and an informed society.

These are precisely the two requirements that I believe are unrealistic.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 1, 2009

I'd bet that the Kim dictatorship does not last another decade; and that when it goes, there will be very few who regret its demise.

I fear there'll be lots who'll regret its demise, because they're brainwashed by being kept in ignorance.

Sadly, you are right. Look at the small population of Russians who still view Stalin as a great leader.

KnockGoats#352,

The poor were satisficed within their means as well as their values. Of course they couldn't wish wealth into existence. India's protectionism was not just against competition but against capital also. They had swallowed the "exploitation" rhetoric.

The free world should be viewed as an example to be emulated, not a victim to be sucked dry. Why shouldn't they produce their own wealth with the trade and investment freely offered, rather than eat the seed corn that makes all poorer in the future?

Re: Sven DiMilo (#356)

Well, as for an 'informed society,' we live in a time where we have more access to information than at any point in the history of our species. Our capacity to utilize just how much information is out there may not be that great, but that's only going to increase. Compare and contrast the younger generations with the older generations. There's a huge gap in access to information systems, but that will fall off as time goes by.

Market equality suggests protecting competition, something you seem to be in favor of (or at least not hindering it). You did say that you don't believe protectionism works?

You're obviously a cynic about the rationality of consumers, but does that really suggest that consumers aren't, by-and-large, actually rational? I submit that it only appears that way because they're reacting to irrational impedances, ones which are invisible at their level of interaction with the market. Bad protectionist laws create impedances like that. What you're probably looking at is the externalities, perverse incentives promoted by ill-thought-out policy. That would certainly make society appear to be doing irrational things, en mass, would it not?

Imagine a school of fish, moving around and interacting as they always do, in a deep, placid lake. So long as they have no predators, they will not appear to be acting irrationally. Now, throw in some predators and watch their reactions. They're finicky, agitated, and risk averse. These predators may be bottom-dwellers and the fish themselves may never actually see what it is that they fear, driving them to be increasingly irrational.

Corporations lobby the government for protectionist policies, as do well-meaning individuals and organizations. The policies affect the behavior of everything within the system. Remove them, and they'll return to their normal, rational behavior.

It's exactly why counter-terrorism laws in this country are so bad (the Patriot act). The goal of terrorism is to predate the population and to inspire primal fear among a population. It polarizes behavior by forcing people to be more aggressive within their own population and militaristic toward outside population, which feeds the rationalizations that terrorists already were making and creates more terrorists.

Looking at our country's airport security, one would conclude that people are irrational. We take off our shoes, confiscate nail clippers and water bottles, etc. It's not that we're being irrational, we're being risk-averse. The only solution to that problem is information, not legislation.

The poor were satisficed within their means as well as their values. - Africangenesis

I think I can leave this piece of sanctimonious bilge to speak for itself.

The free world should be viewed as an example to be emulated, not a victim to be sucked dry.

You continue to pretend that the wealth of the rich countries was generated, and is maintained, without exploiting the poor ones. In other words, you continue the racist victim-blaming in which you specialise.
You completely ignore - indeed I doubt you have the slightest idea - how actually existing capitalism works. If you can't be bothered to try to un derstand the history of capitalism over the past half-millennium, I suggest you at least take a look at how the terms of trade have shifted against primary producers of minerals and tropical agricultural commodities in the past half-century, while the rich have continued to protect their farmers with tariff walls and export subsidies. Of course, if the poor countries try to emulate the way the rich have got rich - even to the extent of imposing tariffs to protect burgeoning industries as every industrialised country has done - they get it in the neck unless they are big enough - like India - to stand up for themselves.

I fear there'll be lots who'll regret its [the Kim dictatorship's] demise, because they're brainwashed by being kept in ignorance. David Marjanović, OM

I doubt it: they are having a shitty time in absolute rather than just relative terms, and you can't fool people about that. China has considerable problems keeping North Korean refugees out. Janine's point about Stalin is interesting, but I think that's a protest against the degree to which the economic security and living standards of most people have declined in Russia since capitalism was restored, while a small, greedy minority have grown immensely rich (many of them of course ex-Soviet nomenklatura or their kids). Few people will actually remember Stalin - he died 55 years ago, so you need to be well into your 60s to do so. They do know that Russia was feared and respected, and won a great war under him.

Look at the small population of Russians who still view Stalin as a great leader.

There aren't many of those, but lots and lots still revere Lenin.

Re: KnockGoats (#360)

I think you're being too hard an AG. I don't think he means that the poor are 'happy' with their situation as much as that they have no incentive to try and get out of it. In fact, policies that are designed to help them actually create an incentive to remain unproductive.

I don't know how old you are, but I'll assume — for the sake of argument — that you both went to high school and have been out of it for some time. Look at the risk/reward system in place for doing well in school. You probably knew some high achievers, students everyone characterized as being goody-two-shoes, stuck up, etc. You also probably knew some particularly low achievers as well, characterized sometimes as popular (the 'jocks') or wildly unpopular ('rejects'). They're all, supposedly, there to work toward the goal of graduation. Some are capable of recognizing the reward of achievement, while others reject scholastic achievement (sometimes as a form of protest against the establishment, sometimes in favor of the pursuit of other goals - like sports). They set the bar low for themselves and achieve precisely as they can be predicted to achieve, not just within high school but outside it as well.

The highest achievers usually go on to generate wealth — they're attracted toward prestigious opportunities in business, medicine, law, etc. The lowest achievers... they end up flipping burgers, or worse. If the over-achievers make poor decisions, they may end up average, or it may not harm them because opportunity abounds. To them, there's always more money to be made somehow (and that's not saying they are doing anything wrong).

If the lowest achievers make poor decisions, they may have four childen with another on the way, are unmarried and supported by the state.

By presuming to help these people with the powers of government, you're really creating an externality. You send the message to the over-achievers (don't bother to achieve, your wealth will be taken from you to support under-achievers). That changes attitudes at a fundamental level and everyone begins to achieve only as well as they must in order to get by. Achievers may pop up in some places, and create surplus, but more simply give up because there is no incentive to do so. Because you cut down the productive capabilities of your highest achievers, you hurt everyone equally. That's why communism has never ended poverty, and never shall.

The answer is not government, it's education and a shift in cultural outlook. We must find out why it is that some people make the decision to not be productive, to not achieve. Achievers don't "steal" what they get, they earn it. One needn't even be particularly smart to be an achiever either (Bush), they just need to try.

KnockGoats#360,

It is interesting that you blame capitalism but when you get specific you point to the deviations from capitalism such as tarifs. Of course I oppose tarifs and subsidies, and most recently I especially fault the ethanol subsidies and barriers to trade that raised food prices everywhere. It is interesting that whenever centrally commanded decisions and the ruling elites do something wrong, you want to blame freedom for it. The probably with you centrally coercing types is that you always assume you will be coercer rather than the coercee. BTW, You can't point to anything racist is my position, you are making it up out of whole cloth.

David Marjanović, OM,

No, you're wrong: it is indeed Stalin and not Lenin who is widely considered a "great leader" in Russia, according to opinion polls. Russia has a long tradition of brutal "modernisers": Ivan the Terrible, Peter "the Great", Catherine "the Great" and Stalin himself. Lenin was only in power a few years (late 1917 to mid-1922 when he had his first stroke), and these were mostly occupied by WWI and the Civil War.

By the way, using the example I gave (schooling) there is a possible method to incentivize education.

Why not pay students for it and penalize cheaters greatly? It's a time during which, as juveniles, we make poor decisions due to lack of motivation and experience. Paying a student to achieve gets them ready for participation in the market at an earlier time and gives them hands-on experience with it. It gives them both motivation and experience they otherwise would not have, and the end result would be higher levels of scholastic achievement (so long as the system is fair).

It is interesting that you blame capitalism but when you get specific you point to the deviations from capitalism such as tarifs. - Africangenesis

Tariffs are, of course, a key feature of capitalism and always have been. That's exactly what I mean by saying you have absolutely no understanding of how actually existing capitalism works - and are evidently determined to keep it that way.

It is interesting that whenever centrally commanded decisions and the ruling elites do something wrong, you want to blame freedom for it.

By freedom, of course, you mean the freedom of the rich to concentrate wealth and power even further in their hands. I, on the contrary, want freedom for all - which is only possible if economic inequality is greatly reduced.

The probably with you centrally coercing types is that you always assume you will be coercer rather than the coercee.

To call me a "centrally coercing type" is so ludicrous as to be laughable, as regulars here who are not blinded by their own ideology know. My views differ mainly in emphasis from those of anarchists such as SC. I favour, as I have said more than once, direct democracy, where everyone gets an equal say. This of course means that while I favour a high degree of public ownership, I want this only with majority consent, and only as long as that consent is retained. I also do not favour top-down planning, but negotiated coordination and a considerable degree of local and regional self-sufficiency - although there are some decisions that affect everyone, and so should be taken at a global level.

You can't point to anything racist is my position
*Snort*
You refuse to recognise the responsibility of those who are born rich in large part because Europeans grabbed vast amounts of land or resources by force or fraud, that you sanctimoniously blame African and Native Americans for their poverty, and that you consider Iraqis "ungrateful" for objecting to US imperialism. As with capitalism, you don't even know what racism is; it is telling that you only ever complain about alleged anti-European racism. Racism is not simply racial prejudice; it is support for institutional arrangements and economic structures that maintain ethnic hierarchies - and of course there is, for historical reasons, no significant European population anywhere that is on the wrong end of these hierarchies. So you whine about imagined slights to Europeans, while denying the existence of real racism.

Ward S. Denker@363,7

Why not try looking at the real world for a change? Experience in western Europe, particularly Scandinavia, shows that you are simply talking total bilge. But then, I've never yet known that to bother a libertarian.

If anyone wants to know the extent to which Wal-Mart represents freedom, try working at one (especially if you're black and/or female). Try feeding children and keeping them healthy on your wages, and getting paid for overtime. Try unionizing at one, in the face of threats, intimidation, and harassment. Try keeping one out of your town (well, many towns and cities have succeeded at this, but these were hard struggles as Wal-Mart has done everything it can to subvert the democratic process). The film Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price has some information.

But it's not about one "bad apple," even if that rotten entity is as powerful as Wal-Mart. Exploitation and hostility to real democracy (including sponsoring and taking advantage of the overthrow of democratically-elected governments and their replacement with brutal regimes) is part and parcel of capitalism. Bolivia's new constitution is one step along the road away from imposed neoliberalism; El Salvador seems to be on a similar path, as do other localities. The question that worries me is: Will the corporations and their market-fundamentalist stooges accept that others disagree with them and want something different, or will they resort, as they have almost always, to violence and the overthrow of democracy in the name of their so-called economic freedom (aka the freedom to starve)?

One of my objections to libertarianism is that it's utopian. Libertarians can not point to any example of a libertarian society (outside of dubious romantic versions of some pre-industrial societies like the tiny village society on Iceland). The anarcho-capitalist version of libertarianism (anarchy with property rights) is even farther removed from any historical example than more moderate libertarianism. If no libertarian society has ever evolved outside of fiction, then it is surely a utopian movement that has not even succeeded at creating a libertarian island or suburb or any community. Other erstwhile utopian groups such as communists, anarchists, Hare Krishnas, Shakers, Mennonites and others have all created communities to test out their ideals, but libertarians have not. Thus, libertarians are utopian in the sense that they are promoting an imaginary society that they believe is more perfect than any other on earth, but that nobody has ever been willing or able to create.

Tis Himself,

Actually, you're incorrect. Our own nation arose from anarcho-Libertarian concepts. We have a particular distinction of being one of the very few that have ever had a start when secularism was in vogue.

Think about it, we conquered a continent and threw off a repressive monarchy during the enlightenment, and we actually structured our contry around secular/libertarian ideas! Our country then grew to be the most economically prosperous country in the world. As Democracy has led to more and more socialist policies, we find ourselves to now be a debtor nation with huge financial problems and an ever-weakening market.

It's you who are rejecting the reality of things.

The anarcho-capitalist version of libertarianism (anarchy with property rights)

As I believe I've established here several times over, there is no such thing.

Other erstwhile utopian groups such as communists, anarchists, Hare Krishnas, Shakers, Mennonites and others have all created communities to test out their ideals, but libertarians have not.

There have been some groups of anarchists who have done so (and there are of course anarcho-primitivists today), but this has never been a big part of the anarchist movement. In fact, when Peter Kropotkin received letters from groups about their plans to build such communities, he discouraged them in the strongest possible terms (his letters are available online), himself focusing on transforming urban environments using science. The idea of isolated test communities is simply not widespread among anarchists. The notion that anarchism is a utopian, backward-looking, anti-technology movement was promoted by Marxists for decades, but it is a myth.

Thus, libertarians are utopian in the sense that they are promoting an imaginary society that they believe is more perfect than any other on earth, but that nobody has ever been willing or able to create.

A genuinely libertarian society cannot exist in practice, for the following reason: Libertarianism requires a state, and a legal system, to defend property rights. Unfortunately, this requires a system of law - and to have a system of law, we need legislators. And when you have legislators, you immediately have special interests who want the government to use its coercive power to their advantage. Because the average citizen doesn't understand economics and doesn't give a damn, the special interests get away with it. Hence why almost all countries have subsidies and tariffs galore, despite the fact that no rational person can claim, objectively, that these things are good for the public.

The only hypothetical way to achieve Libertopia would be to have a completely rigid and unchangeable system of law, which protected private property rights, arbitrated contracts and did absolutely nothing else. Even then, you'd have to rely on judges to enforce it - and who appoints the judges?

So I agree that we, as libertarians, hold an unattainable goal. But we can work towards it; the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. For instance, we're not going to achieve fully privatised education in the UK any time soon; but there's a good chance that a future Tory government will bring in school vouchers - a major step in the right direction - if those of us who care about individual free choice lobby the right people.

I also take your point that, since we have never achieved a libertarian society, we don't know how well it will work in practice. However, I would point out that throughout history, wherever libertarian ideas have been applied to any area of public policy, they have improved things. From the abolition of the Corn Laws in nineteenth-century Britain, to the introduction of school vouchers in 1990s Sweden and Milwaukee, individual freedom tends to make things better. Of course, this isn't conclusive evidence that more freedom will always make things better - indeed it possibly won't. But compared to the dismal list of failures of government intervention throughout history, I think freedom has a pretty damn good track record.

Re: Walton (#373),

I disagree with you that it can never happen. It will continue to happen in cycles, as it always has, until we recognize what it is that is generating the cycles to begin with.

The systems always start out benign. A violent revolution or economic collapse clears away a repressive regime and, for a brief time, anarchy is the foundation for the new regime. In our country, we had a starting point of a libertarian point of view. Look at our Constitution. It's the perpetual rejection of the ideas that founded our nation which has led us away from this state. It was designed to limit the growth of government and government ignores it. The solution to that is education, in my opinion.

Our differences on this are that I'm slightly optimistic that humanity may eventually break this violent cycle because we'll become more educated as we gather more information about our own behavior. We're probably not getting dumber as a species (there are days I'd regret saying that!), so something resembling the ideal may come about as a result of that education.

I could be bitter about it, I suppose, but that accomplishes nothing and concedes defeat: that freedom is elusive and can never be caught so long as we must share it with others.

Our own nation arose from anarcho-Libertarian concepts.

No, Ward, the 18th Century United States (and the British colonies before 1776) were not by any stretch of the imagination libertarian. The Federal government was weaker but state and local governments were stronger. A country where only property-owning white adult males had the vote was not libertarian.

All the tazwa were there except income tax. The equivalent of income tax was property tax (on all possessions) or head tax by many states. There was involuntary conscription, eminent domain, etc. As a matter of fact, things got much better when powers of states were interpreted to be restricted by the US constitution (much later), powers such as state religious authority.

But, of course, you're referring to laissez-faire free markets. Laissez-faire was rejected by the end of the 19th Century because it was obvious that it promoted an oligarchy where the rich got richer and the poor got the shaft (sort of like what's happening these days). The ultimate result of laissez-faire is monopoly. When the monopolists like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie got seriously out of hand, the government stepped in and broke up the monopolies.

Also, society was organized quite differently before the industrial revolution. Our "nation of shopkeepers" was actually a nation of farmers. The means of production were controlled primarily by the workers (who were the owners of the farms and shops). Government of that era would be as out-of-place today as the medicine and scientific knowledge of that era.

We have a particular distinction of being one of the very few that have ever had a start when secularism was in vogue.

So? I don't understand your point with this non sequitur.

Think about it, we conquered a continent and threw off a repressive monarchy during the enlightenment, and we actually structured our contry around secular/libertarian ideas!

We stole a continent from the inhabitants. As for the "repressive monarchy," civil rights in the American colonies were actually better than those in Britain. The major objection was "taxation without representation." Various colonists, including Franklin and Jefferson, argued that Britain should either allow colonies representation in Parliament or not allow Parliament to impose taxes on the colonies. When these suggestions were rejected, then the Revolution became inevitable.

As for your "libertarian ideas" section, you're being self-deluding. Fortunately, most intelligent (and even many unintelligent) people know that you're just parroting a line of BS with that nonsense.

As Democracy has led to more and more socialist policies, we find ourselves to now be a debtor nation with huge financial problems and an ever-weakening market.

Thanks for proving you're not only a historical illiterate but you're also an economic illiterate. But then you're a libertarian. A major requirement for libertarianism is having a serious disconnect from reality.

Tis Himself,

The Federal government was weaker but state and local governments were stronger.

This is a silly assertion. This was during a time in which there was a frontier to be conquered and homesteading to be done. The states did not spring up overnight, and the default position of a homestead society was anarchy.

A country where only property-owning white adult males had the vote was not libertarian.

It's true that we've changed our perceptions about one another, but I contend that as we became a more educated society that this was inevitable. The fall of the American empire, due to revolution or economic collapse, will enable the next government to inhabit this land to be far more libertarian. Rejection of the cycle on the grounds that you deny that it exists is only to the detriment of your argument, not mine. If we continue on this path, America will surely fall victim to one or the other, as has every empire which has ever existed. I'd like to see how you'll reject the historical record, though. It ought to be entertaining.

SC, OM #372

I'm not going to argue anarchy with you. Among other things, I'm not familiar with modern anarchist theories. I've read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid and Fields, Factories and Workshops and Proudhon's Theory of Property, but when the latest book I've read on the subject is over 100 years old, then I can hardly claim to be au courant with anarchism.

When discussing libertarianism with libertarians, using the term "anarcho-capitalist" is appropriate. The term itself may be wrong or misused, but it is the name of a particular flavor of libertarianism.

Think about it, we conquered a continent and threw off a repressive monarchy during the enlightenment, and we actually structured our contry around secular/libertarian ideas! Our country then grew to be the most economically prosperous country in the world. As Democracy has led to more and more socialist policies, we find ourselves to now be a debtor nation with huge financial problems and an ever-weakening market. - Ward S. Denker

What a breathtakingly ludicrous distortion of history! Of course the theft of half a continent (which I see you judge to be in complete conformity with libertarian ideas), and the slave labour of millions, were vital to the growth of US prosperity - as was continued economic integration with north-west Europe. After the Civil War, tariffs were imposed to protect the nascent industrialisation of the north (dispute between northern and southern elites about whether to do this was a principle cause of the war). The economic policies of the US were at their most "socialist" (of course, still very far from anything that could reasonably be called socialism) in the period 1945-63, a period of very rapid growth of prosperity. Since then top tax rates have plummeted, inequality has soared, unions have been weakened, and controls on finance capital imposed after the crash of 1929 have been progressively removed. How very socialist.

Re: KnockGoats (#378)

What a breathtakingly ludicrous distortion of history! Of course the theft of half a continent (which I see you judge to be in complete conformity with libertarian ideas), and the slave labour of millions, were vital to the growth of US prosperity - as was continued economic integration with north-west Europe. After the Civil War, tariffs were imposed to protect the nascent industrialisation of the north

What a disingenuous, distorted, fuck-wit response. Your parents surely dropped you on your head.

I'm talking about the expansion into the West, you know, all of those states which did not benefit from slave labor? Yes, Americans dispossessed the natives violently. Yes, it was abhorrent. This has not one tiny bit of bearing in the conversation.

You can fuck yourself with a razor-bladed stick and go die in a ditch, you pompous, lying, gutless, disingenuous fuck. Try telling the truth, asshole, it will do more for your "cause."

When discussing libertarianism with libertarians, using the term "anarcho-capitalist" is appropriate. The term itself may be wrong or misused, but it is the name of a particular flavor of libertarianism.

It's the name some have claimed, or are attempting to claim, and I'm going to keep making the point that it is not only impossible (as Walton acknowledges, utopian libertarian schemes still include a state) but completely illegitimate for them to use given the history of anarchism. They're not anarcho- anaything. I've linked to this a few times lately, but:

http://www.struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/libcap/refut…

I'm not going to argue anarchy with you....

And I have no interest in arguing it with you. No need to be so abrupt.

:S

That particular myth has had a negative impact on working-class histories, which in the twentieth century tended to be written by Marxists, who ignored the evidence in favor of repeating that anarchism was a movement exclusively of a fading artisanal class, backward peasants, ignorant dreamers, "primitive rebels," etc., so it sticks in my craw.

Posted by: Ward S. Denker | February 1, 2009 7:49 PM

Yup. Just let 'em keep spewing.

This [state and local governments were strong] is a silly assertion. This was during a time in which there was a frontier to be conquered and homesteading to be done. The states did not spring up overnight, and the default position of a homestead society was anarchy.

Why do I even bother to argue with historical illiterates? I must be masochistic to try to teach libertarians history. My SIWOTI-fu must be overwhelming. I should realize that historical revisionism and ignorance is a necessary byproduct of libertarianism.

Sure, we all know how Dan'l Boone moved from Kentucky to Tennessee "'cause it were gettin' too crowded in Kentucky." But most people didn't live on the frontier. In 1770, Philadelphia was not only the largest city in the colonies, it was the second largest city in the British Empire after London. New York was the third largest city in the Empire and Boston was sixth (York and Edinburgh were 4th and 5th respectively). People were living in and around cities rather than on the frontier even before the revolution. These areas had governments.

When people did move to the frontier, one of the first things they did was establish various governments. Charleston, South Carolina was settled in 1670. In 1680 it was designated the capital of the colony. The first settlement in Ohio was Marietta, settled in 1788. The Ohio Territorial Government was established by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Government came to Ohio before settlers.

You can fuck yourself with a razor-bladed stick and go die in a ditch, you pompous, lying, gutless, disingenuous fuck. Try telling the truth, asshole, it will do more for your "cause."

I was right when I decided I should just killfile libertarians when they became recognizable.

So long, Ward. Don't bother to reply to me any more, because I won't be reading your nonsense.

Re: Tis Himself (#382)

When people did move to the frontier, one of the first things they did was establish various governments.

And they looked exactly like they do today, behemoths of legislation with a socialistic bent? Really? I contend that they had fewer laws with a bent toward developing the land and the economy.

Why do I even bother to argue with historical illiterates?

We were having an actual conversation, a good one, with not one invective or insult until you and Goat showed up. You can use his razor-bladed stick (if he'll share it, he's keen on that) and die from anal bleeding in his ditch (if he'll socialize it enough to share it with you) if you're going to make sweeping generalizations about Libertarians.

Re: Tis Himself (#382)(#384)

I was right when I decided I should just killfile libertarians when they became recognizable.

Do it already, asshole! We (Libertarians) actually stand to gain by not having to sift through your drivel to find a conversation with a real intellectual, as opposed to a puffed-up, lying, disingenuous pseudo-intellectual such as yourself.

KnockGoats,

"As with capitalism, you don't even know what racism is; it is telling that you only ever complain about alleged anti-European racism"

Your experience is pretty limited. The anti-European racism you and others express is the main racism I encounter at this site. Any other racism is jumped on pretty quickly here, it is only the anti-European racism that is given a pass.

I'm talking about the expansion into the West, you know, all of those states which did not benefit from slave labor?

Where do you think the capital to develop the west came from? Who paid for the armies to dispossess the natives? The railways? The agricultural machinery? Who bought the agricultural produce and the minerals? Stone me, but you "libertarians" are so ignorant. You really have bought into the whole frontier myth as well as the American Revolution myth, haven't you? The whole of the USA was always part of the global capitalist system, centred in the 18th, 19th and the early 20th century around the north Atlantic.

You can fuck yourself with a razor-bladed stick and go die in a ditch, you pompous, lying, gutless, disingenuous fuck.

I addressed your arguments, admittedly dismissing them as the ignorant, ludicrous nonsense they are, and you responded with personal abuse. And you're not even any good at that.

Think about it, we conquered a continent...
Ward S. Denker@371

Yes, Americans dispossessed the natives violently. Yes, it was abhorrent. This has not one tiny bit of bearing in the conversation.
Ward S. Denker@379

So the thing you were boasting about@371 has no bearing on the conversation?

You didn't deserve that Knockgoats.

Africangenesis@386,

You simply confirm that you haven't the faintest understanding of what racism is; and that you imagine anti-European prejudice (from Europeans of course - self-hating Europeans, I suppose) at every turn. It's clearly not a real problem to you, the accusation is just a rhetorical weapon.

Re: KnockGoats (#387)

Wagon trains had whole armies with them? America didn't even have a standing army after our revolution, we had militias. As for "paying" for the trip, individuals went as far as they could on what little they had (and many times that wasn't very much). They settled wherever the land was relatively open and not already occupied, subjecting themselves to great risk from natives (or finding peaceful ways to coexist with them). You must remember that the natives did initially welcome their would-be conquerors, by and large, and they possessed firearms to back themselves up when that arrangement changed. As more individuals homesteaded on the land, those who followed them could get further by trading with those who had come before (who had farmed the land and raised livestock and produced goods for trade with settlers).

I addressed your arguments, admittedly dismissing them as the ignorant, ludicrous nonsense they are, and you responded with personal abuse.

You said "Of course the theft of half a continent (which I see you judge to be in complete conformity with libertarian ideas), and the slave labour of millions[...]". How am I not to take that to be a personal insult? You drew a box around me, labeled me as a supporter of the slaughter of innocents and slavery, and I responded in kind. If you want to have a civil conversation on the merits of your own point of view, do it, and don't say stupid shit like this or I'll rip you a new asshole.

Patricia, OM,

Thanks for your concern, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest! Such an insult from someone worthy of respect would be different.

Right, time for bed! Good night to all except creobots and libertardians!

Right, time for bed! Good night to all except creobots and libertardians!

That's right, exclude all those who zombies would avoid due to lack of brains...

Denker,
You were boasting about conquering a continent@371, with no sign whatever of disapproval. I simply took you at your word. I did not impute approval of slavery to you - note the placement of my comment about what you judge to be in accordance with "libertarian" ideas.

or I'll rip you a new asshole. - Ward S. Denker

You pathetic little turd.

If you want to have a civil conversation on the merits of your own point of view - Ward S. Denker

You're too ignorant and ideologically blinkered to be worth the attempt, shit-for-brains.

Re: KnockGoats (#392)

Right, time for bed! Good night to all except creobots and libertardians!

Have fun running, and try not to let the door hit you where evolution split you.

Re: Patricia, OM (#389)

You didn't deserve that Knockgoats.

How do you think I should take "Of course the theft of half a continent (which I see you judge to be in complete conformity with libertarian ideas), and the slave labour of millions[...]"?

That was an insult and deserved one in kind.

Goodnight, KG!

(Wow - Wa...nker's a disturbing little creepster when that mask of civility comes off, no?)

Somebody making some noise? Nah, just a libertardian going at it. Time to move along. Nothing to see here.

Re: KnockGoats (#394)

You were boasting about conquering a continent

I did no such thing, you sick fuck. For that, may you endure the anal rape of a thousand gorillas and a subsequent bath in pure isopropyl alcohol.

I did no such thing, you sick fuck. For that, may you endure the anal rape of a thousand gorillas and a subsequent bath in pure isopropyl alcohol.

Ward, you are quite the bully boy. Time for you to go home. And stay there. The adults want to post here, which leaves you out with that attitude. Unless you are wiling to apologize, go terrorize another blog.

Gorillas have the smallest penes of all apes... yes, in absolute terms.

For instance, we're not going to achieve fully privatised education in the UK any time soon; but there's a good chance that a future Tory government will bring in school vouchers - a major step in the right direction -

Can I trust my eyes!?!

Well, probably not, because it's 3 at night here. Good night.

Re: SC, OM (#396)

Wow - Wa...nker's a disturbing little creepster when that mask of civility comes off, no?

When a gauntlet is thrown one should expect a deserved foil through the heart. As for "disturbing," certainly. I chose to employ striking imagery as a weapon when faced with intentional distortion of my words and meaning. It's effective, as you, no doubt, must scrub your brain of the image of said gorillas from 398.

The reality is, my civility isn't my mask, it's my nature. My incivility is my mask, worn to frighten those who would oppress my opinions. I must confess a perverse enjoyment when wearing it, however. The reactions are hilarious.

Gorillas have the smallest penes of all apes... yes, in absolute terms.

Well, in Denker's defense, he has only his own to compare them to.

I must confess a perverse enjoyment when wearing it, however.

I'm quite sure.

That was a witless insult and irrationally cruel. PZ has warned us not to commit such stupidity on his blog. You would do well to apologize Ward. Or go home.

Re: SC, OM (#402)

Well, in Denker's defense, he has only his own to compare them to.

You concluded that from my text? Wow, what an enlightened position. Penis size is so important to evolutionary biology.

I think you're only projecting because your mother's is bigger.

Re: Patricia, OM (#403)

I'd be honored to, so long as he apologizes first for his mischaracterization of my position and the lie. And I even promise not to attack him again, so long as he promises the same.

SC, OM - My goodness what an interesting mother Ward thinks you have.

You concluded that from my text? Wow, what an enlightened position. Penis size is so important to evolutionary biology.

I think you're only projecting because your mother's is bigger.

Lame. (As expected from a blithertarian.)

Denker can't distinguish among an accurate characterization of his statement, an insult, and an elaborate rape fantasy. That's a scary person. He is also delusional enough to believe KG's running away from him. Sad, and more than a little creepy.

Sorry Ward. I cannot broker that for you. PZ holds each of us personally accountable for our foul mouths and brutish behavior.

Hold me back SC, I'm just itching to invite him to call me something vile, so I can catch up to Janine.

Must. Not. Cheat.

Well, if his attempt at insulting me is any indication, I don't know if he'll be of much use. He's just too lame. (I'm still puzzled by the remark about my mother. Is that some dreadful insult to men or something? I was just like "WTF?")

That reminds me - what happened to Pete Rooke? He was pretty much a regular at the end of last year.

Hold me back SC, I'm just itching to invite him to call me something vile, so I can catch up to Janine.

This could be fun to watch. Where's the popcorn?

I'm talking about the expansion into the West, you know, all of those states which did not benefit from slave labor?

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! What do you think Bleeding Kansas was about. One of the main reasons for the American Civil War was that the southern slave states wanted the western colonies to be admitted into the union as slave states. The reason being this, the balance of power in the House and Senate would swing to the slave holders?

Why do you think that the southern states seceded after Lincoln became President. He was not going to end slavery but, instead, contain it to where it was already legal. This was going to swing the balance of power to the north. Slave holders had a lot invested in the west.

Damn it, know your fucking history. Also, fuck yourself with a razor sharp dildo.

Wowbagger - I'm deep in the sin of envy. Janine got the moniker Vile Bitch and I've been jealous.
Sorry I don't have any popcorn, just double pepperoni pizza, beer, and sangria. (We're cheering for the Cardinals in memory of Pat Tillman)

Patricia,

I'm happy to offer you Humorless Twat, Trashy Piece of Work, and True Internet Pussy. But you probably want your own names...

Does anyone know if Rooke kept up his blog?

Patricia, when colorful insults are tossed at the denizens of this blog, people point it out to me, expecting me to adopt it. Kind of like being known as the kid who was willing to touch all the ickie things the kids find. But if you want, I will let you adopt the next colorful insult. It is the least I can do for a charming slut like you.

It's technique.
At first I thought she was trouncing me with youthful redheaded exuberance. Now I see, it's all banshee fly in delivery.
*heads for the broom closet*

Sorry I don't have any popcorn, just double pepperoni pizza, beer, and sangria. (We're cheering for the Cardinals in memory of Pat Tillman)

That all sounds good to me, esp. the pizza - we're in the middle of a heatwave (6 straight days with a maximum over 110°F) at the moment and cooking just isn't an option. I've had one cooked meal - BBQ - in the last week; I've either eaten cold meat & salad or a couple of bowls of cereal.

Yeah, I'm going for the Cardinals as well - the punter, Ben Graham, is an Australian.

I'm willing to accept that. Thank you!
But I'm still working towards Vile. The closest I ever came to that was 'vituperous sow' at a water district meeting.

Well! Now we need to name SC!

Wowbagger,

28 and humid here,at least a little bit cooler now.....

Whats the Cardinals?
And I am mystified as to some of Denker's comments above....

And I am mystified as to some of Denker's comments above... He's a bad tempered bully of a libertardian. By now you know any relationship between what they say and reality is purely coincidental.

Wowbagger - Here in Oregon we've been seeing the horrible fires on the news in your neck of the woods.
In July, August and September we get 100 degree weather here. It sucks! Right now it's cold, and so dark we have the chickens lit up, or no eggs. You might be interested to know that our Australian chickens don't seem bothered at all by the snow.

Tis'Himself#370,

How can a left anarchist have any ground to call libertarianism utopian? Yes, libertarianism is grounded in principles, but has the advantage of NOT requiring utopian completeness like left anarchism. Libertarian principles can be approached gradually, and pragmatically. After all, libertarianism is about limited government, and an appreciable plurality are constitutionalists, satisfied with the ideals if not the implementation and practice of the founding fathers.

SC, I don't doubt that some anarcho-capitalists may be trying to coopt your left anarchist heritage, but most I met want nothing to do with that history. Anarcho-capitalism is closer to the natural justice that humans expect, that is having property rights in the produce of their own labor. It is just a matter of having greater respect for your fellow human beings.

KnockGoats,

You accuse me of not understanding capitalism, yet you say it is been around for 500 years. You obviously are conflating it with mercantilism, and even after that you would be discussed the practices and history of mixed economies that to a greater or lesser extent adhered to the ideal of emphasizing the creation of wealth through the deferal of consumption and investment in research and increases in future productivity.

Re: Patricia, OM(#410)

Hold me back SC, I'm just itching to invite him to call me something vile, so I can catch up to Janine.

We're playing at a rather silly game here. I don't take well to being called a supporter of slavery and the murder of an entire continent of people. When I'm insulted, I don't always play by the rules of engagement. Bring a knife to a gunfight and I'll shoot. Bring a gun, and I might go for a tactical nuke.

This is kind of like that movie Wargames (the one with a young Matthew Broderick) where he teaches a computer that playing the game (war) is pointless and just ends in complete annihilation on both sides (a Pyrrhic victory). I just don't want to take as long playing silly games of tic-tac-toe. The end annihilation games are more fun for others to watch and the same point is made.

Must. Not. Cheat.

You and I are playing by the same rules. You said something crude, I responded snarkily. Your response was still at crude (but funny), so I stood down and disarmed the nukes. I don't need to enter the launch codes every time, after all. ;)

I like you, and I can see why PZ does. Whilst not getting involved in the actual arguments, you snipe with jest, and you respond well to humor in return.

KnockGoats@390,

You are confusing racism with hatred, and thus assuming a European expressing racism against Europeans would have to "self-hating". You are painting all Europeans as guilty of benefiting from empire, colonialism and exploitation, and meriting none of their wealth no matter how created or acquired, not out of hatred, but for some other agenda, presumably in the interest of furthering your extreme democracy focused on redistributing wealth. However, misguided and unfair your racism is, it doesn't have to be hatred, just demonizing a whole race for your purpose.

Clinteas,

The Cardinals are an American Football team from Arizona playing in the Superbowl. Ben Graham, their punter, played Aussie Rules for Geelong (he was captain for a while) before heading over their to try his luck in the NFL.

Patricia - the fires are more in clinteas' neck of the woods (Victoria) than they are mine (South Australia) - but we've still had issue - blackouts, train derailments (the tracks buckle in the heat) and a few dozen deaths of sick and/or elderly people.

It's good to know we produce tough chickens. It almost makes up for having vomited up Ken Ham...

Wowbagger,

Friday was the worst,was running round the Department with water sprayers and iv pumps all evening,most people that came in had core body temperatures of over 40C....Oh,and of course the power was out,puters dead,the whole shebang LOL
And you can almost see the fires from my Hospital.

Denker,

bit too late to play nice now,dont you think.Rather revealing litle period upthread,when the veil came off....Im afraid I know all I ever want to know about you after reading that.

clinteas,

Damn, that's harsh. It hasn't really affected me beyond the personal discomfort and having to sleep in my lounge room where the air-con is.

Re: Janine, of the Shifting Titles (#416)

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! What do you think Bleeding Kansas was about.[...]

I concede that this is a fine point, but it is also an example of why I'm not an anarchist. Bad ideas can continue to spread when there's no enforcement to eradicate them.

I'm really talking about the time immediately following the writing of the Constitution. Taken at face value, the tiny group of rebels had written the founding document of a libertarian government. It went downhill fast from there (to a modern Libertarian), as more and more clamored for bigger and bigger government to solve their problems. No matter how well it was written, it's been pretty much ignored at an increasing rate since the founding.

There was also a lot of peaceful settlement during the Western expansion. By and large, most people are good. At the same time, one must remember the reasons that the expansion into America took place to begin with. People came here for opportunity and to escape oppression. Considering what many were running from one can imagine they'd have fewer qualms taking land from peaceful people, especially a group of people they viewed as subhuman. This isn't an excuse for their behavior (so, the rest of you refrain from quoting me out of context).

Sacagawea's experience with European settlers was positive (peaceful explorers). If only she'd known who else she was inviting into her home.

Didn't you have me in a killfile? I got into a scrap and you sat down to watch the carnage unfold, didn't you?

Re: Clinteas(#428)

bit too late to play nice now,dont you think.Rather revealing litle period upthread,when the veil came off....Im afraid I know all I ever want to know about you after reading that.

I invite you to take some time to go back and read what it is that precipitated it. I have not attacked someone who didn't attack me first. No matter how you slice it, telling someone (in so many words) you think they support slavery and genocide is deserving of a vehement response.

Crude?

Sir, I must protest.

Wanton, suggestive, and brazen, but hardly ever crude. If you continue in this line of abuse I shall ban you from the spanking couch.

Re: Patricia, Charming Slut, OM(#432)

Wait, there's a spanking couch? What does one have to do to get that punishment?

Wowbagger - The Aussie chickens are such lovely girls, so black and glossy that they mirror emerald green in their feathers. Wing deep in snow they continue to lay eggs everyday.

Hovind is playing on TV here in Oregon on my channel 14. I didn't know we had a fool channel - my husband tuned it in and we laughed until it hurt. Hovind was touting gawd's day of rest is 1000 years.

Re: Patricia, Charming Slut, OM (#434)

Hovind was touting gawd's day of rest is 1000 years.

No wonder he was cranky throughout the Old Testament, man had yet to invent alcohol and he went through a thousand years of rest without so much as a beer.

Nowadays people justify having one after mowing the lawn. That fella had to invent an entire universe first.

Hovind was touting gawd's day of rest is 1000 years.

Never mind the inconsistency of an omnipotent being that needed to 'rest' in the first place. We get the 'global edition' of The Daily Show and last night's had Jon Stewart praising Obama for having worked on his seventh day - unlike a certain deity he could name.

He then proceeded to be even more uncomplimentary about said imaginary being. It was great...

Pffft!
What, you thought PZ didn't run a proper ship? Of course we have a spanking couch.

We have Naked Bunnies with Whips, Vile Bitches, and two sluts with OM's - that doesn't put you passed the wannabe a naughty boy row. But keep trying, naughtiness counts here.

You are painting all Europeans as guilty of benefiting from empire, colonialism and exploitation, and meriting none of their wealth no matter how created or acquired - Africangenesis

I have, of course, never done any such thing. Are you really incapable of distinguishing between attributing guilt - which clearly belongs only to those who have intentionally or negligently caused a wrong, and attributing responsibility to mitigate the consequences of that wrong, which can apply, at the least, to anyone who has benefited from it?

I invite you to take some time to go back and read what it is that precipitated it. I have not attacked someone who didn't attack me first.

What "precipitated" it, Denker, was an entirely reasonable response to your boasting about how "we" "conquered a continent." I had exactly the same response, as I would have to the same sort of statement being made about British colonialism in Africa. There was no attack, and even if you perceived it as such your response was well out of proportion, not to mention creepy. And this was from someone whose first (I believe) comment here was this

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/testing_testing_testingis_th…

which Denker followed with several idiotic, scolding posts about the lack of civility here (and avoiding the substantive responses to his stupid ideas about vaccination policy). Denker's shown himself to be a liar, for instance in that he claimed that he avoids mentioning his blog which I've seen him do on at least three occasions. He's also a complete ignoramus.

I don't take well to being called a supporter of slavery and the murder of an entire continent of people.

Then stop writing like one, dillweed.

Africangenesis:

How can a left anarchist have any ground to call libertarianism utopian?

To whom are you speaking? 'Tis Himself isn't an anarchist.

Yes, libertarianism is grounded in principles, but has the advantage of NOT requiring utopian completeness like left anarchism.

Bullshit, on every count.

SC, I don't doubt that some anarcho-capitalists may be trying to coopt your left anarchist heritage,

Stop it with the "left anarchist" nonsense. Anarchism is a movement of the left.

but most I met want nothing to do with that history.

Then they should stop using the fraudulent "anarcho-capitalist." You can do your part on their behalf by not repeating it and ceasing to use "left anarchist" when talking about anarchists.

Anarcho-capitalism is closer to the natural justice that humans expect, that is having property rights in the produce of their own labor.

Yeah, 'cause other social animals and hunter-gatherers are huge on personal and corporate property rights. And propertatiranism really promotes this for workers.

It is just a matter of having greater respect for your fellow human beings.

See, this is why I had stopped responding to this joker for a while. It's so often hard to tell if he's serious.

SC,

I'm not going to get into another argument, since you find it so tiresome, and I have nothing to say that others haven't said more eloquently.

I do, however, wish to ask an honest question.

Does your opposition to private property extend only to natural resources, like land and water, or does it also extend to something a person creates through his own labour? I can understand the argument (though I disagree with it) that private ownership of land and other resources is not required by natural justice, since no one "creates" these things.

But let's say X takes some wood worth £1, and, through his skill and labour, makes it into a chair worth £5. While I understand that on your view the £1-worth of wood is the property of the community, not of a private individual, what about the £4 that X has, through his own effort, added to the value of the chair? Is that £4 not rightfully his property, and is he not morally entitled to exclude others from it?

I'm just asking. I disagree with you about the illegitimacy of property rights in land and natural resources, but I can see your point. But I want to know where you stand on human-created resources, produced by the labour of an individual.

You accuse me of not understanding capitalism, yet you say it is been around for 500 years. You obviously are conflating it with mercantilism - Africangenesis

You have a point there: in the conventional understanding, capitalism did not get going until considerably later. My understanding of it is based in world-system theory. This was originally developed by Wallerstein on the basis of earlier work by Braudel and others; although I much prefer Chase-Dunn, whose writing is not disfigured by Marxist jargon as Wallerstein's is. In brief, the theory characterises capitalism as a system where production for profit is the primary mode of accumulation; and where corporations and the states-system are both key features.
The bases for this system were indeed laid around 500 years ago, with the development of extensive capitalist-mode agriculture in western Europe, and the beginnings of European imperialism - the two coinciding in the slave-worked sugar plantations of the Atlantic islands and then the Caribbean. The 17th century Dutch Republic was the first semi-capitalist state, with the explosive growth of industrial production (shipbuilding, sugar-refining, agriculture) as well as trade, the first multinational (the EOC), the first boom-bust phenomenon (tulips), and a ruling elite based on money derived from trade and production for profit rather than land. You can call this early stage "mercantilism" if you want, but it developed seamlessly into full-blown capitalism - which still retained, as indeed it does today, elements of accumulation by outright theft and fraud as well as production for profit. Your idea of "capitalism" as a complete "free market" has never existed and could never exist.

Denker,
In addition to all your other faults, you're a brazen liar. you said, @371:
Think about it, we conquered a continent and threw off a repressive monarchy during the enlightenment, and we actually structured our contry around secular/libertarian ideas!

Since you boast of the two in the same tone and the same sentence, it is an obvious inference that you considered this conquest of a continent to be in accordance with libertarian ideas.

I responded@378:
Of course the theft of half a continent (which I see you judge to be in complete conformity with libertarian ideas), and the slave labour of millions, were vital to the growth of US prosperity - as was continued economic integration with north-west Europe.

As the placing of my parenthesis makes clear, I did not attribute to you approval of slavery; I was simply pointing out that slavery was an important contributor to US economic development, as part of showing that the myth of the noble frontiersman [sic] taming the wilderness and thus building the great US-of-A by his [sic again] own unaided efforts is a load of crap. That you choose to respond with weird and unpleasant fantasies of a kind which I would guess are characteristic of psychopathic sexual sadists bothers me not a jot (although it might unnerve those who live anywhere near you) - but thanks to those who have called you on this.

Does your opposition to private property extend only to natural resources, like land and water, or does it also extend to something a person creates through his own labour?

I see we're back to "his" again.

I can understand the argument (though I disagree with it) that private ownership of land and other resources is not required by natural justice, since no one "creates" these things.

Nice try. Not only is it not required by natural justice; it is contrary to it. As I pointed to above, not only do other social species not have such relationships, but the sort of human societies that characterized the vast majority of human history did not recognize private property in the sense you understand it (as I recall, the !Kung had a notion of watering-hole "rights," but this and similar didn't resemble your conception of private property). And the corporation, the very recent creation of governments, cannot be argued to possess natural rights of any sort. Further, activities such as gathering, hunting, cooking, building, etc., were also performed in common (this is not to say there were never status inequalities, of course).

You might want to read a little about what's been happening in countries like Bolivia, where people have increasingly been fighting back against attempts to privatize (steal) and exploit their natural resources for profit. They know what natural justice is, Walton, and it's not capitalist imperialism.

But let's say X takes some wood worth £1, and, through his skill and labour, makes it into a chair worth £5.

No, let's not, Walton. First, you've already conceded that your hypothetical dude is making use of a shared - and threatened - natural resource to which in my view he has no private moral right (not to mention the fact that the technology and tools he's using are the products of centuries of invention and labor). But leaving this completely aside, the reason I generally avoid discussions with you is that, as I explained very plainly on the earlier thread, you speak in abstractions that have little or no correspondence to the real world. How about you do some research into the history of your country's furniture industry, focusing on workers and taking a global view? You have access to wonderful libraries. Then perhaps you can explain how a young girl making furniture in, say, the Philippines or Mexico or Honduras, to be sold in stores where you live, making about $3 per 12-hour day, is enjoying the fruits of her labor.

[By the way, I'd like to see a citation for your claim that media consolidation is not a fact, and your broader claim about the non-concentration of corporate power. Were you simply arguing that the number of corporate entities has not decreased - which, I admit, would counter my poorly-worded suggestion that corporations were ever fewer? Or were you trying to counter the spirit of what I was saying, arguing that the domination of a relatively small number of very rich corporations (under 2500 in the US own 3/4 of all corporate assets) is not the case or is being reversed?]

I see we're back to "his" again.

My apologies. I forgot that the ordinary conventions of the English language were so offensive to your delicate sensibilities.

In all honesty, I'm so used to using "his" to mean "his or hers" that I simply don't notice. It wasn't an intentional choice to piss you off.

But leaving this completely aside, the reason I generally avoid discussions with you is that, as I explained very plainly on the earlier thread, you speak in abstractions that have little or no correspondence to the real world.

That's because it was an example to illustrate a point. We're not discussing the mechanics of furniture manufacture, a subject about which I know nothing and care less.

But, OK, if it makes you happy... X buys some flour, yeast and water from Y for $1, hires an oven from Z for another $1, and makes a loaf of bread worth $4. (I'm fairly sure that's an accurate enough presentation of the process of baking. If it isn't, feel free to correct me.) She has thereby added $2 of value, through her own labour and effort, to the loaf. Does that $2 not, morally speaking, belong to her? You've skilfully evaded answering this question, despite the fact that you know damn well what I was asking.

Then perhaps you can explain how a young girl making furniture in, say, the Philippines or Mexico or Honduras, to be sold in stores where you live, making about $3 per 12-hour day, is enjoying the fruits of her labor.

This is really quite spectacular in its irrelevance. Unlike X in my example, your young girl is not self-employed; she is employed by another person under a contract. She has sold her labour in exchange for a fixed wage. That wage, therefore, belongs to her and constitutes, for our purposes, the fruits of her labour. Indeed, I'll throw the question right back at you: is that girl not, morally speaking, the owner of her $3 a day, and of everything she chooses to buy with it?

As an aside, the fact that she is willing to work for such a low wage indicates that the alternatives are likely to be even worse. Thus, if the sweatshop where she works were to close - due to, say, well-meaning left-wing Westerners organising a boycott of its products - she would be left with the, erm, next best alternative, which would probably be either (a) street prostitution or (b) starving to death. So I have no guilt whatsoever about buying sweatshop-made products; it is, indeed, the best way to help sweatshop workers.

You might want to read a little about what's been happening in countries like Bolivia, where people have increasingly been fighting back against attempts to privatize (steal) and exploit their natural resources for profit.

What's been happening in Bolivia is that the deranged left-wing demagogue Evo Morales has risen to power on a wave of populism, and started expropriating (stealing) foreign-owned property for the benefit of the State - which will inevitably lead to the disappearance of foreign investment, and, in the long run, to the collapse of the Bolivian economy and the destitution of its people.

The same thing will happen to Chavez in Venezuela. Might take longer because they do have oil to prop him up.

"I forgot that the ordinary conventions of the English language were so offensive to your delicate sensibilities."
"In all honesty, I'm so used to using "his" to mean "his or hers" that I simply don't notice."

Or, in other words, Walton's so full of male privilege he can't be bothered to notice or care about being a sexist douche. That explains the whole Force Birth Agenda compliance.

Re: Knockgoats(#442)

In addition to all your other faults, you're a brazen liar. you said, [...] Since you boast of the two in the same tone and the same sentence, it is an obvious inference that you considered this conquest of a continent to be in accordance with libertarian ideas. [...] I responded [...] As the placing of my parenthesis makes clear, I did not attribute to you approval of slavery; I was simply pointing out that slavery was an important contributor to US economic development, as part of showing that the myth of the noble frontiersman [sic] taming the wilderness and thus building the great US-of-A by his [sic again] own unaided efforts is a load of crap. That you choose to respond with weird and unpleasant fantasies of a kind which I would guess are characteristic of psychopathic sexual sadists bothers me not a jot (although it might unnerve those who live anywhere near you) - but thanks to those who have called you on this.

That reads:

I boast of sucking off goats, and I like it!

I took the liberty of adding punctuation, since you're not good at working it into your hidden meanings.

If you're willing to retract your intentional misreading of what I said, I'll retract my intentional misreading of what you said...

As an aside, the fact that she is willing to work for such a low wage indicates that the alternatives are likely to be even worse.

Of course Walton, that must be right, because the owner of a sweatshop would never think

My apologies. I forgot that the ordinary conventions of the English language were so offensive to your delicate sensibilities.

In all honesty, I'm so used to using "his" to mean "his or hers" that I simply don't notice. It wasn't an intentional choice to piss you off.

That is the point. It's only an accepted and unquestioned convention among those, like you, who are incapable of recognizing their own privilege. It has nothing to do with "delicate sensbilities," you twit (you're the one with delicate sensibilities). It's about language that discounts and marginalizes more than half the population. PZ and KnockGoats are English speakers. Read their posts and see if you find the same constant unthinking acceptance of gendered language there.

That's because it was an example to illustrate a point.

No, an illustration should be real.

We're not discussing the mechanics of furniture manufacture, a subject about which I know nothing and care less.

We were - or should have been - discussing the social and political relations of production in the real world, something you're neither inclined to do nor capable of doing. Exhibit Z-107:

But, OK, if it makes you happy...You've skilfully evaded answering this question, despite the fact that you know damn well what I was asking.

I haven't avoided anything. I've answered no, and explained why.

This is really quite spectacular in its irrelevance.

Right, the existing relations of furniture production in corporate capitalism are irrelevant to the question. I suppose anything concrete is irrelevant when your entire viewpoint is a religious one based entirely on abstractions.

Unlike X in my example, your young girl is not self-employed; she is employed by another person under a contract. She has sold her labour in exchange for a fixed wage. That wage, therefore, belongs to her and constitutes, for our purposes, the fruits of her labour.

I think I've underestimated your intelligence. I guess her purposes (say, food, health, freedom) are as irrelevant as the socio-historical context of said "contract."

Indeed, I'll throw the question right back at you: is that girl not, morally speaking, the owner of her $3 a day, and of everything she chooses to buy with it?

Wow. Just wow. Everything she chooses to buy with it? Appalling. She is, morally speaking, entitled to far more, both materially and in terms of rights to democratic participation.

As an aside, the fact that she is willing to work for such a low wage indicates that the alternatives are likely to be even worse. Thus, if the sweatshop where she works were to close - due to, say, well-meaning left-wing Westerners organising a boycott of its products - she would be left with the, erm, next best alternative, which would probably be either (a) street prostitution or (b) starving to death.

And of course these are the only alternatives of which people like Walton can conceive. She and her coworkers could not reclaim the means of production, or reclaim the land and resources which have been stolen from them driving them to such desperation, to produce their own goods. Even their struggles for union rights or legislation to win better wages are to be dismissed in favor of corporations working with governments to keep workers desperate and controlled. Real freedom there, Walton.

So I have no guilt whatsoever about buying sweatshop-made products; it is, indeed, the best way to help sweatshop workers.

I'm done with you. You don't intend to learn anything - as you've said, you'll always hold the same views, and no engagement with reality will change them. You're living in the fucking clouds of ideology. You dismiss science, history, and social science in favor of your abstract myths and rituals. Your desire to place your lofty, baseless theoretical speculations above the investigation of the real world and the consequences of your actions makes you, foolish boy, as dangerous as any Communist, or as your heroes who supported and guided Pinochet.

Correction:

I think I've overestimated your intelligence.

What's been happening in Bolivia is that the deranged left-wing demagogue Evo Morales has risen to power on a wave of populism, and started expropriating (stealing) foreign-owned property for the benefit of the State - which will inevitably lead to the disappearance of foreign investment, and, in the long run, to the collapse of the Bolivian economy and the destitution of its people.

You've already shown your ability to parrot right-wing talking points about things of which you're entirely ignorant and not interested in the least in learning more about. We really don't need more illustrations.

"I boast of sucking off goats, and I like it!" - Ward S. Denker

But do the goats enjoy it, Ward?

the destitution of its people

Neoliberal-colonial relations in Bolivia have made it the second poorest country in the hemisphere, with staggering levels of inequality. Its people are fucking destitute. And they're perfectly capable of making decisions about their own political and economic future, condescending allusions to "populism" and demagoguery notwithstanding. (This s the same rhetoric that has preceded every accomplished or attempted coup against democratically-elected leaders around the world, from Allende to Mossadeq, for which these bozos are apologists.) I'm curious as to what your knowledge of Bolivia is based on. Extensive reading in Bolivian history? Do you read or understand Spanish? Have you translated the new constitution, as I have?

Anyway, doesn't matter. The tide is turning in the world. As I said above, the frightening question that remains is how much violence the right will use to maintain their illegitimate privilege in the face of movements for justice.

SC, OM
Come on - you know as well as I do that Bolivia has been a paradise for centuries under capitalism, with every individual loaded with more wealth than they know what to do with - particularly members of the indigenous majority. Their perversity in electing Morales and opposing the privatisation of Bolivia's remaining natural resources is utterly inexplicable. Must be some sort of bizarre masochistic desire to suffer, I suppose.

Isn't having your own blog enough space for your bullshit Walton?

You say you come here to learn, but all you do is preach nonsense.

Someohow lost most of what I wrote up there. ahem.

As an aside, the fact that she is willing to work for such a low wage indicates that the alternatives are likely to be even worse.

Of course Walton, that must be right, because the owner of a sweatshop would never think of using intimidation to reduce a workers freedom to choose for herself the best course of action. A factory owner would never, say, threaten violence if an employee wished to quit and move to a better-paying competitor, or if, heaven forbid, she tried to organise a union.

Employers don't use threats; they are noble wealth-creators and employment-providers. Only the government uses intimidation.

/libertardian Poe

Re: SC, OM(#450)

That is the point. It's only an accepted and unquestioned convention among those, like you, who are incapable of recognizing their own privilege. It has nothing to do with "delicate sensbilities," you twit (you're the one with delicate sensibilities). It's about language that discounts and marginalizes more than half the population. PZ and KnockGoats are English speakers. Read their posts and see if you find the same constant unthinking acceptance of gendered language there.

Or, maybe, just maybe, sprinkling language with his/her everywhere is distracting and sullies an otherwise aesthetically pleasing language with pointless linguistic droppings. Using "one," "one's," "one's own" gets confusing and makes a sentence hard to follow, it breaks up the flow. Using "their" in conjunction with "one's" is technically incorrect, and it makes the speaker sound like an uneducated lout for it. Substituting a feminine possessive form looks like one is intentionally picking on females when talking about negative things.

So the fall-back position is... using plain English!

And, it's of supreme asshattitude to misconstrue meaning so as to say, "He/she is a hateful misogynist because he/she can't recognize his/her heritage of being favored/oppressed over/by the opposite sex. He/she is only that way because he/she favors the convention of his/her language, taught to him/her at birth, instead of applying the new cultural outlook of his/her polite society into his/her language because he/she willfully disregards it in favor of his/her ability to be easily understood by his/her readers. He/she should know that misogynists spoke English, and he/she speaks English, therefore he/she, too, is a misogynist."

I don't know about you, but that looks like it's just a minefield of stupid.

And of course "well-meaning left-wing Westerners" could never boycott sweatshop-produced goods in favor of dealing with fair-trade operations, including worker-run cooperatives, or demonstrate solidarity with union or land-rights or antiprivatization struggles in these countries, or...

Re: Goat-knocker (#452)

There's a mis-attrubituon of quoted context, Goat-knocker. Your name gives you away. Also, come up with your own material. "I'm rubber, you're glue" is such a kindergarten approach to comedy.

"mis-attrubituon" - the epic fail of typographical errors. *sigh*

Of course Walton, that must be right, because the owner of a sweatshop would never think of using intimidation to reduce a workers freedom to choose for herself the best course of action. A factory owner would never, say, threaten violence if an employee wished to quit and move to a better-paying competitor.

If he or she does so (happy now?), he or she is acting outside the libertarian paradigm. We believe in free and voluntary contractual relations, unvitiated by force or fraud. You can't point to something which violates libertarian principles and hold it up as an example of the failure of libertarian principles.

Has Denker@457 missed any of the excuses for using sexist language? Anyone?

Denker, this has already been discussed at some length. This, however, caught my eye:

Substituting a feminine possessive form looks like one is intentionally picking on females when talking about negative things.

Is the suggestion that one would only substitute the feminine possessive [?] form when talking about negative things, or that it would only be noticed in this case, or what? Because I've read many a work in which the pronouns were mixed and never had this reaction.

And, it's of supreme asshattitude to misconstrue meaning so as to say, "He/she is a hateful misogynist because he/she can't recognize his/her heritage of being favored/oppressed over/by the opposite sex. He/she is only that way because he/she favors the convention of his/her language, taught to him/her at birth, instead of applying the new cultural outlook of his/her polite society into his/her language because he/she willfully disregards it in favor of his/her ability to be easily understood by his/her readers. He/she should know that misogynists spoke English, and he/she speaks English, therefore he/she, too, is a misogynist."

How stupid. If you're talking about a specific individual, you use the pronoun associated with his or her gender. Otherwise, you could, for example, simply make it plural (and remove the extraneous /s):

"[People who write like this] are hateful misogynists because they can't recognize their heritage of being favored over the opposite sex. They are only that way because they favor the convention of their language, taught to them at birth, instead of applying the new cultural outlook of their polite society into their language because they willfully disregard it in favor of their ability to be easily understood by their readers. They should know that misogynists spoke English, and they speak English, therefore they, too, are misogynists."

Perfectly clear, equally dumb.

[By the way, many self-aware Spanish speakers have taken to ending -o/-os words -@/-@s, as in ell@s. I like that - it's cool looking.]

I boast of sucking off goats, and I like it!

Hey, isn't that the title of Katy Perry's next single?

If he or she does so (happy now?), he or she is acting outside the libertarian paradigm. We believe in free and voluntary contractual relations, unvitiated by force or fraud. You can't point to something which violates libertarian principles and hold it up as an example of the failure of libertarian principles.

ahh right. I take that when you implement libertarian you will be ensuring that the world contains only consistently moral libertarians. Otherwise, I you're just going to be lending gangster-thug capitalists an opportunity to create feudalism, and that seems like an odd move from self-described lovers of liberty.

I wasn't claiming that the sweatshop owner was a libertarian. In assuming that an employee has the freedom to enter into a employment without threats it seems as if you were assuming that (s)he was, but I certainly wasn't. I'm all for reducing force and fraud but the idea that freeing capitalists from state regulation will do any such thing is simply ridiculous. Anywhere that employers can get away with using forced labour at least some of them do.

SC: I'm curious as to what your knowledge of Bolivia is based on. Extensive reading in Bolivian history? Do you read or understand Spanish?

Un poco - I studied Spanish in school and have spent a fair amount of time in Spain - but no, I have never been to Bolivia and have read little about its history.

However, there are many, many people who know far more than me about Bolivian history and who would, nevertheless, vehemently disagree with you. When I attended a conference at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, VA this summer, I met a couple of Bolivian political activists who bemoaned the destruction of freedom and ruination of the economy under Morales.

Admittedly, my throwaway statement about Bolivia was deliberately partisan - I was, in part, intending to satirise your own highly partisan take on the matter. There are two sides to every story.

We believe in free and voluntary contractual relations, unvitiated by force or fraud. You can't point to something which violates libertarian principles and hold it up as an example of the failure of libertarian principles.

Then you have to reject real-existing sweatshops and the context in which they operate, as these are vitiated by force and fraud from start to finish. We were talking about real sweatshops, and you gave your (appalling, ignorant, and appallingly ignorant) opinion on them in relation to your "ideals." You can't simply retreat to your absurd abstract theory whenever you're confronted with the real fucking world.

We believe in free and voluntary contractual relations, unvitiated by force or fraud. - Walton

This is the fraud at the heart of "libertarianism". If your only choices are to work an 80-hour week in unhealthy conditions for a pittance, street prostitution or starvation, your "agreement" to the first is not in any real sense voluntary. It was not the operation of the "Free Market" that largely put a stop to this kind of exploitation in the UK, but legislation and collective action.

More generally, no contract between parties differing greatly in power - like a large corporation and the average individual even in a rich country - can honestly be seen as one in which both sides are equally free to make or refuse the contract. In the absence of countervailing forces - from the state, union, or other collective body - the inevitable result is inequality of wealth and power increasing without limit. Since this is so obvious, I conclude that this is indeed the result "libertarians" desire.

Patricia, OM @455

Isn't having your own blog enough space for your bullshit Walton?

You say you come here to learn, but all you do is preach nonsense.

Amen, or whatever we atheists say! Um, too fucking right? How's that work?

Anyway, I think that Walton is a sadist and a masochist; he likes for people to point out that he's a moron. He should just engage in self-flagellation and leave the rest of us out of it.

There are two sides to every story. - Walton

Indeed. All those women tortured and burned as witches must have done something to deserve it, mustn't they?

I usually don't comment - I'm content to read (and yes, sometimes, learn) from those who contribute to Pharyngula. This comment from SC:

The tide is turning in the world. As I said above, the frightening question that remains is how much violence the right will use to maintain their illegitimate privilege in the face of movements for justice.

caught my eye as being especially, and sadly, profound and accurate. Reactionary institutions (government and otherwise) are more and more threatened by popular movements, and while I am optimistic about the progress of human social development in the long term, I am not so sure that violence and oppression will not increase in the short term.

With permission, I would love to use this in the future.

However, there are many, many people who know far more than me about Bolivian history and who would, nevertheless, vehemently disagree with you.

Argument from authority. There are also a lot of people who know more about evolutoin than you and who believe in ID.

When I attended a conference at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, VA this summer, I met a couple of Bolivian political activists who bemoaned the destruction of freedom and ruination of the economy under Morales.

I'm sure they did. And I'm sure they'll receive (if they haven't already been receiving) the financial support of the US government and corporate right-wing organizations in their continued attempts to subvert and oppose democracy in Bolivia.

Admittedly, my throwaway statement about Bolivia was deliberately partisan - I was, in part, intending to satirise your own highly partisan take on the matter.

So making a statement based on ignorance is satirizing an informed viewpoint in your view.

There are two sides to every story.

There are usually many sides. In this case, you know virtually nothing about any of them, and should refrain from the sort of rhetoric that, as I noted, has historically been part of the propaganda that supported overthrowing democratic governments. Those who claim to value freedom should be careful about being apologists for those who claim to be promoting it by brutally imposing their own vision of it on other people rather than respecting their right to choose for themselves.

Out of interest, does anyone know of any attempt by right-libertarians to answer the question of to deal with the instigation of force by the powerful? (Non-capitalist) anarchists and non-statist leftists generally at least try to answer the equivalent question, but several times I've asked right-libertarians and I've got the same shit as Walton gave: "We reject that behaviour. It's against libertarian principles. They would be taking on the role of the state", as if would-be feudal masters are going to hear this hand-wringing condemnation and fall in line with non-aggression.

Re: SC, OM (#463)

Is the suggestion that one would only substitute the feminine possessive [?] form

They're called "weak possessive pronouns." Our language lacks distinctive gender-neutral forms that can be used ubiquitously, and other languages (ones I'm aware of) which have them seem to apply them inconsistently.

when talking about negative things, or that it would only be noticed in this case, or what? Because I've read many a work in which the pronouns were mixed and never had this reaction.

Seriously, will you lay the fuck off already with your concern trolling? I have read works written just like what you're describing and I did have that reaction, and that's the whole damned point. It's subjective. You're trying to make it sound intentionally objective, like if we're aware of others' linguistic sensitivities and disregard them in favor or readability that it instantly makes us misogynists. It's like you see everything through a black/white prism. Your spectrum only permits you those colors (and yes, fuck-wits, I recognize white light is the combination of all colors, I'm being metaphorical), whilst I recognize there's a broad spectrum on the application of language. If I wanted to call you an ignorant twit, I can say it straight out and avoid the subtlety.

I'm not exactly an heir to the throne of the kingdom of subtle in recent posts, and for a very obvious reason. I'm mocking you. I'm mocking the attitude commentators on this blog take toward "outsiders." I'm mocking the tone you take with intentionally exaggerated one-upsmanship on insults. You're prejudiced assholes when it comes down to it, and you deign to call others racists and misogynists. How dare you?

And the most sick fucking thing of all is that your black and white prism of false dichotomous logic completely blinds you to your own behavior. You disgust me.

Ward to SC said "Seriously, will you lay the fuck off already with your concern trolling?"

In the past pharyngulites have set the bar pretty high for misuse of the phrase "concern trolling" but you just took it to the next level.

Knockgoats - Yes, they certainly did do 'something'. My 8th great auntie Mary turned herself into a large black sow and frightened the wits out of a mans formerly fearless hound.

Thusly the octogenarian widow deserved to be hanged, and...wait for it... have her property confiscated by church leaders.

Thank you very much, Bobber, and of course you may use it. It's sad that celebrating the growth and victories of these movements has to be tinged by this fear, but it would be unwise not to appreciate the dangers that history has shown to exist. (I'll note that I hope I'm not being read by anyone as supporting every movement, much less government claiming to be on the left, especially in Central or South America. I have a lot of criticisms of these governments and some of these movements and often read critical writing by anarchists in these countries...with which I also sometimes disagree...)

SC, Concern Troll, OM.

SC, would you happen to have a big shock of hair?

Damn, SC, wait till Janine sees your "you disgust me.". She's going to be ever so jealous.

KnockGoats,

"If your only choices are to work an 80-hour week in unhealthy conditions for a pittance, street prostitution or starvation, your "agreement" to the first is not in any real sense voluntary"

Where are you living? How could you miss the choice to work 40 hours, drink beer, make babies and watch football on Sunday?

Oh, you must be thinking of the third world again, where they where they stuff their money into unproductive gold rather than capital equipment. Sometimes they make the wrong choices, and the people they might have employed with that equipment suffer for lack of the wealth that equipment might have made possible. Were the exploitative colonial systems neglectful of basic education in economics?

Ha, haw! See, told ya.

Re: Mat Heath (#475)

Well, I'm applying a bit of lateral logic here. It's surely done this in the past, probably with everyone with which it disagrees on any grounds whatsoever. So I'm taking the perspective that this is his level of concern trolling is at "class action" status by now. ;)

See what I did there with my gender-neutral, weak possessive pronouns? I deprived "it" of personhood at the same time I illustrated a point, since I cannot be sure of "its" gender where such contextual clues are severely lacking. I did, unfortunately, have to break a rule, turning the possessive of "it" into "it's" because I was painted into that corner - half is nominative, the other half a contraction of "it has." That was also to illustrate a point, since we're getting right down to brass tacks.

Uh, I hope no one will be disappointed if I don't respond to that confused, ranting attempt at self-justification by Denker. You've revealed yourself on this thread to be a total creep, Denker, and you've also made your purpose here at Pharyngula (slagging) even more explicit. I'm joining 'Tis Himself in killfiling you (I don't have the technology, so it's merely a commitment to do my best to ignore you in the future).

Oh, Patricia! You forced me to unblock the wanker's comment. Ha! I like SC, You Disgust Me, OM better than SC, Concern Troll, OM.

I'm honored! (have taken some liberties)

SC, would you happen to have a big shock of hair?

Indeed I would (Emmet and the Rev. have now seen my picture - they can tell you).

Re: Patricia, OM (#479)

I'm glad someone appreciated it. Registering "disgust" is also a faux position, intentionally stronger than reality. The reality is that I can't help but feel a twinge of pity for something so blinded to its own nature.

Hey, it can use that, if it prefers: "SC, blinded to its own nature, OM."

HA! HA! HA! I love it!

Re: SC, OM (#483)

[...] Denker, and you've also made your purpose here at Pharyngula (slagging) even more explicit.

SC: Officer, that man shot me!
Officer: He has a bullet wound, what did you do?
SC: I shot him!
Officer: You shot him first, or you shot him back?
SC (proudly): I pre-emptively shot him back!
Officer: ...

Where are you living? -Africangenesis

Right, I should only be concerned about people who live in the same country as me. The context, halfwit, was a discussion of conditions in the Philippines. I actually noted that such conditions scarcely occur in the UK, because of state and union action to prevent them doing so. There's no doubt they'll be back if you "libertarians" get your way.

You disgust me. Ward S. Denker

Well piss off then. You most certainly won't be missed, you creepy little shit.

"I hope no one will be disappointed if I don't respond to that confused, ranting attempt at self-justification by Denker. "

SC, you had more patience with him than he deserved. Someone that invested in maintaining blindness to unearned privilege clearly enjoys the safe confines of his rectal cavity over fresh air.

SC:

Thank you for the reply. I admit to knowing very little about anarchism or its history before reading your comments on this blog.

I've been watching the occasional libertarian wars on this blog, and am disappointed by the pie-in-the-sky idealism they cling to. I have seen this libertarian tendency in many 20-somethings (I being among the next higher generation), where relatively highly-educated young people who have never known serious want (mainly IT guys, in my experience) see no reason for unions, think that poverty is a result of laziness, and think that if only everyone would be left to their own devices, we could live in a capitalist paradise where highly ethical individuals co-exist in a world where selfish industry somehow magically produces social good.

I'm a history guy, and I've spent more than half of my working life in human services and education, the other half in the corporate world. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the latter had really no clue about the realities I had to deal with in the former.

I will share, by the way, your ambivalence toward some so-called leftist movements; all too often, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was simply a dictatorship, with leaders who employed the same oppressive tactics, just with Soviet-bought weapons as opposed to U.S. ones.

Anyways, please do continue these fascinating conversations. ; )

I have a question. Is it worth it for me to show the wanker's comments to I can get the full context?

You've set yourself a very high goal Ward. Brenda is the reigning Troll Goddess. Knocking her off the throne is damn near impossible. And as nasty as you have been so far, you're still points behind Pete Rooke and Piltdown Man.

Ward:

I did, unfortunately, have to break a rule, turning the possessive of "it" into "it's" because I was painted into that corner - half is nominative, the other half a contraction of "it has."

I don't see any possessive in the sentence in question. Perhaps I've been temporarily blinded to my own nature (that being a native speaker of American English). Please enlighten? It looks to me like a simple case of contracting "It has". What exactly, in that sentence, does "it" possess?

Bobber:

I've spent more than half of my working life in human services and education, the other half in the corporate world. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the latter had really no clue about the realities I had to deal with in the former.

Hear, hear. I have a few good friends who qualify as conservatives, free-market Smithies who simply do not see the realities faced by human services workers such as my wife (a counseling psychologist) on a daily basis. When the bottom line is weak, The Market simply does not "care". This is why enterprises that yield no profits tend to fall through the cracks when "fiscal responsibility" is exercised, at the expense of social and moral responsibilities. Oddly, this regularly happens when the GOP takes the reins, be it at the local, state, or federal levels. At least that's how it looks way over here in The People's Republic.

Re: Bobber(#491)

I've been watching the occasional libertarian wars on this blog, and am disappointed by the pie-in-the-sky idealism they cling to.

It's "us vs. them" out of the gates... got it. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, here's the secret hand shake and the lynchings start at 12:30 after brunch at 12:00. Libertarian lynchings will be served as an appetizer to the Republican lynchings to follow.)

I have seen this libertarian tendency in many 20-somethings (I being among the next higher generation), where relatively highly-educated young people who have never known serious want (mainly IT guys, in my experience)

Have you ever stopped to consider why this is?

"IT guys" (engineers) have a higher-than-average capacity for lateral thinking. They need it in order to find problems where everything obvious has already been checked, and are forced to employ it frequently (experience reinforces it).

Which hurts the poor more, that some of them use drugs but don't harm others, or that the police can use the drug war to deprive them of their Fourth Amendment rights, jail them over a victimless crime, effectively denying them of any treatment for their addiction, forces the quality of the drugs they consume down (it's illegal and black markets have no accountability) and kills them instead of just getting them high, forces the cost of drugs sky-high (so they resort to stealing to support their addiction, and using violence to defend themselves from the homeowners they're burglarizing), and leads to gangland murders (including of innocent bystanders.

The reason all of that's lateral logic, and why Libertarians are good at it, is that no sane person would vote for a law that says it would create all of those problems. They'd easily vote to outlaw drugs, and ignore all of the repurcussions of that judgement.

SC: Those who claim to value freedom should be careful about being apologists for those who claim to be promoting it by brutally imposing their own vision of it on other people rather than respecting their right to choose for themselves.

Erm, I don't think I was saying anything of the sort... where, exactly, did I advocate invading Bolivia and overthrowing Morales by force of arms? It's not our job to police the world; nor have I conducted a study of the strategic feasibility of any such operation.

However, I take fundamental issue with your reference to ...respecting their right to choose for themselves.

Yes, the majority of people in Bolivia chose Morales and socialism. However, tyranny of the majority is no better than any other form of tyranny. I believe in individual choice, not mass choice. Each human being is an individual. The "people of Bolivia" have not chosen Morales any more than the "people of America" chose George Bush; the people of a nation are not a homogenous mass with one guiding will.

I believe in the right of each individual to choose for him- or herself how to live his or her life, how to dispose of his or her private property, and which voluntary contractual arrangements to enter into.

Look at it this way. Imagine you were the only atheist in a hyper-religious country. Let's say the people, by an overwhelming majority, elected a government with an express mandate to stone all atheists to death. Would they be morally justified in stoning you to death? After all, "the people" have "chosen for themselves" how they want their country to be governed.

I say not, and I doubt you disagree; the majority, even an overwhelming majority, should not have the power to take away basic rights and freedoms. And for me, those basic rights and freedoms include the right to own private property and exclude others from it.

SC, OM - Speaking of that slut, Emmet. Do you have him locked in your closet? He's been MIA for quite a while.

When the bottom line is weak, The Market simply does not "care".

Of course "The Market" does not care, because "The Market" isn't an anthropomorphic entity with human feelings. Rather, it's an economic and social phenomenon; it exists in the same way that "societies" exist (another abstraction which leftists have an unfortunate tendency to anthropomorphise).

Leftists love to set up a straw man libertarian argument along the lines of "The Holy Market Forces will make everything perfect and good and wonderful", and then knock it down. In reality, that isn't what libertarians believe. Rather, we make a much more convincing claim; that while the market sometimes produces failure, coercive government action will in most circumstances produce worse failure.

Bobber,

Thanks again. It sounds like you have a wealth of experience and insight (and I'm not just saying that because you complimented me). You should start commenting more often!

I didn't realize that only Libertarian IT guys supported decriminalization of drugs. Geez, I'm a Libertarian, and didn't even know it.