Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 18:04 "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:878xfo14vu.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org... > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >> unsettled wrote: >> > Where's the bright line distinguishing fundamentalist from sane? >> >> Islamist are not medically insane, > > Have you ever played 'tick the boxes' with DSM IV? > > They're insane in spades, according to that. > 99% of usenet would be too, though. Only 99%. Phew.... :-)
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 18:08 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>unsettled wrote: > >>>>T Wake wrote: > >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>T Wake wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No more so though than any religious zealot. > >>>>> > >>>>>Very true. > >>>> > >>>>Your bias rears up again. > >>>> > >>>>That depends on whether destruction and killing are part of > >>>>the zealot's "thing" or not. It is very much the "thing" > >>>>for Islamic fundamentalists, but I have yet to discover > >>>>any other religion with zealots advocating those things. > >>>> > >>>>Even if there is another one, its hardly a universal case. > >>> > >>> > >>>You're quite mad. History's full of such examples. > >>> > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition > >> > >>You really are very very stupid. > >> > >>The Spanish Inquisition was a political tool used to try > >>to eliminate converted Jews and Moors from Spain and to > >>seize their assets. > >> > >>Read the section headed "Motives for instituting....." > >>which tells about additional political advantages to the > >>institution. > > > > > > Are you truly that unaware of the wars between Protestants and Catholics > > throughout Europe ? > > Political. Partly for sure. More accurately about power and influence than politics as we think of it today though. It *was* also about religion ! > > How about witch-hunts ? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins > > > Was Hopkins a zealot or simply a very evil man ? > > You've found one crazy in in British history since the > importation of Christianity to your Islands. He may conceivably have been very sane and recognised a cushy job when he saw one. > Any more? Just an example for you. How many more do you want ? How many more do you *need* to prove the point ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 18:09 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > > The insanity is the same, the actions carried out as a result of the > > insanity are different. Does that mean the insanity is different? > > Certainly. The ones who cause the most harm to themselves > or others are the most insane. What harm ? What you consider harm they might consider redemption. Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 18:15 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:4a9bc$45bbd876$4fe72dd$25645(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > <snip> >> >> If religious beliefs are the default human condition [*] then it could be >> argued that non-believers are insane. >> >> I dont agree that religious beliefs are the default human condition >> though. > > Google religion gene (no quotes) 2,790,000 hits > > The top one is an article in New Scientist. > > "Genes contribute to religious inclination" > > "Genes may help determine how religious a person is, > suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of > a religious upbringing may fade with time. > > "Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that > religious behaviour was simply the product of a > person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more > recent studies, including those on adult twins who > were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about > 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness.: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147 > > So it seems to me that they are. I am having many problems getting onto New Scientist at the moment (I get a HTTP 302 response but the page it directs to seems to be gone). On the search http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=religion+gene&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Other than the NS article (which I cant even pull from the cache for some reason), the second link says there is no gene for religion. The NS article you have quoted talks about the genes contributing towards a persons "religiousness" which (IMHO) is different than saying the gene is a causal agent of religion. I found an article on the Journal of Personality (vol 73) which talks about a similar subject, but only really discusses how genes may indicate a persons reactions to religion and likelyhood to stay with a particular church. If I can work out how to get the Journal reader to let me cut and paste I will do so. All I can say is, it seems to me that religion is not genetically coded for. If it is, which religion? Which parts of religion? Why are religions different? etc. >> >>>This is precisely why I wanted a differentiation into >>>degrees of insanity. >> >> >> Not something I can provide as I tend to think of insane and not insane. >> However, I have nothing against differentiating insanity into different >> grades and can see the logic behind saying the insanity of someone who >> goes to church every Sunday is different from the insanity of someone who >> prevents their children receiving chemotherapy for cancer on religious >> grounds, which again is different from the insanity of some one who kills >> innocent people on the grounds of their religion. >> >> -- >> >> [*] If "religion" is the default human condition, it fails to answer why >> there are so many mutually exclusive religions and why over the spread of >> human history there have been so many religions which wildly differ in >> their practices and implementations. If religion provides some other >> function (social, power, control etc) which is the default human >> condition then it is another matter entirely, but surely then the "other >> function" which is the default human condition.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 18:18
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:8b250$45bbd232$4fe72dd$25487(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:87f48$45bbc045$4fe72dd$24989(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>>This is why I asked what you (and BAH) thought the purpose was. It >>>>strikes me that you both feel the Convention is there to limit the >>>>options warring nations can take when they wage war and I wondered if >>>>that was the case. >>> >>>No. >> >> >> Ok. Thanks for clearing it up. >> >> >>>>If it is, do you feel it is the only reason for the conventions? >>> >>>The only reason is to criminalize conduct the convention >>>defines to be illegal. >> >> >> That can be used to describe pretty much every law as well. It also >> leaves more of the question remaining. What is the reason the signatories >> decided to agree that the conduct the convention described as illegal >> should be described as illegal? > > Because everyone likes to put a nice face to unpleasantness. Ok. >>>Only losing nations and their executives ever face the >>>consequences. No nation or national executive engages >>>in war with the thought of losing. > >> Very true. The lack of consequences for the victor is part of a different >> problem. Are you saying the convention should be ignored because America >> will probably win? > > No, but I am saying it can safely be ignores if America wins. > I won't attempt to draw moral judgments on what amounts to > the massive immorality of wholesale killing. Nor will I > approve of war nor condemn it, because warfare is one of those > human conditions which have and will always exist. > >>>How many nations have conducted significant torture since >>>becoming signatories of the convention? Several, actually. > >> So what? > >> Are you saying it is OK to torture because other countries do so / have >> done so? > > I am saying it should not be unexpected. > >>>Does Israel, a signatory, abide by the convention? It doesn't >>>seem so, because the people they're fighting against aren't >>>accorded POW status. > >>>Since you say that the people at Gitmo aren't soldiers, they're >>>not subject to the convention and, as the Russians used to tell >>>the world, how we treat criminals is an internal matter. > >> I agree. I have said that several times in this thread. The detainees at >> GTMO can easily be declared illegal combatants under the terms of the >> convention. I even pointed to the articles which said that. > >> Now, the problem is (and the reason it was raised) is that some people >> insist the war on terror is a war. If that is so, the convention does >> indeed apply. > >> I do not think it is a war, so the convention does not apply. > >> Some people, and I am not sure if you are one of them, think that it is a >> war so the rule of national law should not apply. If this is the case, >> then the GC should apply. > >> I suspect some people, and again I am not sure if you are one of them, >> want neither the rule of national law nor the geneva convention to apply. > > The situation of Gitmo was created with the intent to avoid > laws and conventions. To the mind of those charged with the > warfare in this instance, the alternatives are to kill them > when captured or to take them to secret prisons in countries > which will gladly accommodate them for a few. > >>>If it turns out they're being abused we should probably do >>>as the Turkish government did after the Armenian genocide, >>>claim it was carried out by "bad officials" who will be >>>punished once we identify them. > >> That is always an option. Is that the sort of thing Americans do? > > Who knows. This is the first time we're facing this sort of > problem. > |