tcpip | Unicon, Work, Elections and Racial and Religious Madness, Banned Rats!

Unicon, Work, Elections and Racial and Religious Madness, Banned Rats!

Spent the weekend at Unicon with

caseopaya. Not a bad event, first gaming con I've been too in several years. Played "Parallel Flight" (Fireborn, not so good), Restoration (Urban Arcana, very good), Get Who (based on Get Smart, death coincidental, fun but severly limited for characters other than agents 99 and 86), Schools Out (Mutants and Masterminds, a d20 superhero game; OK, but combat orientated) and at the top of my enjoyment list "Four Fists of Righteous Fury" (where we had narrative and character development, deadly seriousness and comic relief!). Surprised to see that there were no D&D sessions. Sessions were far too short. Will give a full write-up on experiences on

aus_gamers in the near future. Afterwards went to Mind Games to spend money ;-)

I have been working. Borderlands has shifted offices and their network and all it's wiring needs to be reassembled. This week I start training Prosper Australia on marketing and getting media coverage. I've also picked up a translation job for a set of health clinics in Northern Ireland who apparently need documentation ... in Tetum. Strange but true. CCNA Semester 2 starts on Tuesday. Feeling confident about it.

Schroeder grasps defeat from the jaws of victory and is about to destroy the SPD in the process. Meanwhile, in New Zealand Helen Clark's victory seems assured following the counting of special votes. I will be living in New Zealand by the end of 2006, I swear.

More bombings in Bali. Further evidence to recent suggestions that too much religion is bad for your society. From religious to racial fundamentalism; former US Secretary of Education thinks the way to solve crime is to abort "blacks".

I've banned my rats from the desk drawer and the office. Two keyboard cables and three speakers is too much. They're coping ;-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

First, I see you have fallen victim to the Leftist meme du jour. Bennett, though by no means a reasonable man, in this particular case was quoted out of context and was ridiculing the idea that a link between abortion and crime statistics was worth considering with his comments. So the comment that he made that people consider appalling was in fact a hypothetical example of something he considered a bad idea. Not to say I like Bennett, but dragging him over the coals for this one is the sort of idiot political discourse that is precisely the problem with US politics.

Actually, a lot of the prediction before the whole Germany horse trading began was that Merkel would be the one that gets screwed by the coalition. The SPD gets a few years where someone else gets to make some unpleasant reform decisions and they can sabotage her leadership enough it will be very difficult for her to increase her parties role.

Of course, its not really religion that is bad for you society, if it comes with pluralism and tolerance. There is an argument that with sufficient pluralism and tolerence, you are unlikely to have too much religion, of course.

1. Bennet's comments ("But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down...That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down") is clearly built on the assumption that there is a racial type ("black") which has a genetic propensity to commit more crime. I really don't see anything other way to intrepret his comments.

2. The sensible thing for the SPD to do would be to form a coalition government with the Greens and rely on the Left Party for support. Of course, this would require them to admit that the reason they've done so poorly (and the Left has done comparatively well) is that their "reforms" are unpopular. Seeming that Merkel is offering more of the same, but harsher, the SPD is engaging in a slow suicide. Those who support the reforms will go the way the Christian Democrats, those who oppose it will go the way of the Left Party. So why would anyone want to vote SPD?

3. Of course. The difficulty that all religions face is that making absolute metaphysical claims means that pluralism by definition is negated.

1. Actually, I'd say its quite conceivably based on a realistic hypthesis that black people probably commit more crime than the average, due to generally being of a lower socio-economic group and living in areas with poorer social services. Bennett may be a creep, but you don't have to assume he is both a creep and an idiot. And by doing so, you contribute to the sort of political discourse which has largely lead to the prevalence of creeps like Bennett.

I certainly didn't read Bennet's comments that way. He is making a gentotype definition, not a socio-economic one. If he meant abort children of the poor because they commit more crimes he would have said so; however, he is a race theorist. In his world "race" is a definite subspecies of human which has a correlation to socially constructed activities (e.g., criminal).

You can read that into one word? I think you are hearing what you want to hear. In the context of US politics, where socio-economic status IS strongly statistically correllated to race, and thus statistically correlated to socially constructed activities like crime, his comments (ie that he was acknowledging the statistical correlation BUT rejecting the reasoning that leads from a naive interpretation of that) make sense. Again, he is a creep but not an idiot. While on this argument, you are siding with those who are idiots. I'd prefer to be neither, thanks.

I make no suggestion that he is an idiot. As I mentioned in the original post, he is a race theorist.

Have a look at a more full transcript;

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006

and follows;

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509300008

This is clearly race orientated. Bennett is claiming that blacks are the cause of crime.

He says nothing that is not consistent with believing that race and crime are statistically correlated, without implying a necessary causal role. Given that he is rejecting the idea as unsound, you are second guessing which of several grounds for unsoundness he could be using as a basis for rejection, and assuming he chose the one that deserves the most criticism. Which is an unreasonable assumption.

He is certainly being evasive about just who introduced race into the debate, sure. But frankly, you are drawing a long bow, when there are plenty of better things to harrass Bennett over.

He is a creep, because the first thing that sprang (is that a word?) to mind when asked about abortion and crime statistics, was a fairly unhelpful and disgusting theory.

He is an idiot because he actually spoke his mind on the subject.

2. That option, however, is not actually open to them, as the Greens and the SPD do not together form a majority, and the Left will not go into formal coalition, as I understand it. And you, of all people, should know that politics is not simplistic enough that people automatically divide along the lines of support of a single broad policy direction.

The Left made it clear that they would not form a coalition, but they would still support the SPD-Green coalition if it wanted government. Support for this proposal was strong among some SPD representatives from what I have read.

Hmm... I would have taken it.
But you could see how there would be a difficult political environment to be working in -- the SPD would be relying on the Left for government, but fundamentally relying on the CDU to get reforms that the Left dislike through.

3. No more than any other school of thought, such as atheism, that makes absolute metaphysical claims. The issue is how much religion claims it should be able to enforce its wishes on society (in particular the modern state), which is a different issue. Buddhism, for example, doesn't actually claim to make absolute metaphysical claims in some variants (it claims its teachings are testable hypotheses that each believer should test for themselves) but it can still be problematic.

Re 3). Oh, I agree. I find that fundamentalist atheism is as abhorrent as any other form of religious fundamentalism. And fundamentalist Buddhism is just weird as well as dangerous.

Fundamentalists of any stripe are scary in some sense. But fundamentalist atheists are mostly just annoying, because mostly they don't believe their beliefs should be enforced by the state.

Its the relationship between church and state that is the worry, not the metaphysics. Islam used to be tolerant in the middle ages, because they believed in a (somewhat) pluralist state (at least by the standards of the time), now the Islamist concept of the relationship between church and state is all screwed up.

But fundamentalist atheists are mostly just annoying, because mostly they don't believe their beliefs should be enforced by the state.

Except for the ones in the former Soviet Union, contemporary China and sometimes France. ;-)

because they believed in a (somewhat) pluralist state (at least by the standards of the time)

Well, it was more of a case that their religion was more pluralist. Even the most radical secular rationalists, the Mutazilite, still completely tied Church and State together.

having just read through that entire comment thread above, i've forgotten what i was going to say about your post. oops!

however, i realised i never got around to commenting to your post earlier - yes, it was me that you met at Sin. sorry i didn't talk longer, i'm kinda shy, and i was also having a weird night. 'tis a shame, since i'd have liked to get to know you a little more in person.

(userpic is to remind you, in case you can't remember what i look like. this message is (to the best of my knowledge) not in any way devious in intent!)

sorry i didn't talk longer, i'm kinda shy, and i was also having a weird night.

I've never liked clubs where you can't hear conversations. :/

'tis a shame, since i'd have liked to get to know you a little more in person.

The opportunity may arise soon enough. I'm planning to return to Perth for Swancon.

I'm kinda stunned by this discussion.

1. "Race" is an entirely discredited notion, and those who identify it as a valid, real-world distinction are, by definition, racist.

2. The neoliberal obsession with the wholesale restructuring of societies and economies is only referred to as "reform" by its adherents and apologists.

3. Atheists make no "absolute metaphysical claims", but claim instead that metaphysics itself is bunk.

What, exactly, is a "non-fundamentalist" atheist?

1) Yes. I agree.

2) Yes. I agree.

3) No, I disagree. Every worldview has a metaphysical claim, even if that claim is that there is nothing other than the natural world.

A non-fundamentalist atheist would be one who doesn't treat religious associations or expressions any different to other associations or expressions. The example of France banning religious symbols in state schools is an example of fundamentalist atheism.

3) Surely that's like the way the (UWA) UCC used to reckon — because their constitution, based on the Charter of the VOC, claimed the right to make laws about anyone with official status under it — they could make laws governing non-members simply by according them the "Official Status of Non-Member".

There are no "metaphysical claims"; there are only claims about the Universe (which only metaphysics, somewhat perversely, seeks to subdivide into "the natural world" and something else). All claims are claims about the Universe, and atheists as a group make no claims relating to things other than the Universe.

I note you don't call the French "property fundamentalists" because they have laws against theft or "fundamentalist pacifists" because they outlaw gladiatorial contests in the streets. I'd suggest it's entirely unreasonable to label them "atheist fundamentalists" (clearly a belligerent terminology, given the way "fundamentalist" has come to mean "extremist nutter") because they seek to promote commonality over distinction. Most people call that "nationalism".

Metaphysics;

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

Goddamn it, it's not as if I haven't spent my entire post-school life studying this. Show some respect to the resident expert! ;-)

Fundamentalist Atheists;

It seems you have missed my point entirely. Their laws do promote distinction over commonality. Your examples, to be frank, are actually wrong. The French do allow theft under certain circumstances and they do apparently have legal use of arms.

But to bring this back on topic a secular legal system position wouldn't care about the real or imagined religious symbolism on clothing standards at schools. The French laws do make such a distinction, hence they are atheistic and breach the separation of church and state.

In other words, they're behaving like China or, in a far less violent fashion, Iran. But the principle is the same - that the state may make judgements on religious expression qua religious expression.

Logical Positivism:

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

Get over it. ;)

Seriously, if I invent a philosophical system called "Pastaphysics" which includes Everything in the Universe plus the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the idea that mathematics might be made of Spam, and then I suggest that your worldview is in fact a Pastaphysical one, I would rightly be accused of being a) silly, and b) annoying. Even if I'm to be a 2,000 year old Greek.

Fundamentalist Atheists:

The French don't ban the belief in, teaching of or (generally) the practice of (most aspects of most) religion(s); to label them "fundamentalists" in this sense is clearly both inaccurate and belligerent. Their secular system cares about and distinguishes religious accoutrement because those you wear it intend that act to mean "by this symbolism I show myself to belong to an ethnic or religious subgroup".

You can't wear nothing but a red rubber nose and a Dirty Sanchez to schools in France either, not because the French dislike nudity or unhygienic sexual practices, but because by doing so in such a public fashion you are clearly attempting to highlight your differences from those around you, rather than attempting just to get along. They used to make me wear a tie and cap at St Louis; if they were Fundamentalists too, the term kinda loses its potency.

(And before anyone calls me on it, I am using the extreme and satirical example above for effect, not to suggest any connection with between theists and shit-eating clowns. I might also note that I am in favour of allowing people to wear just about anything they want to. But then, I'm not in government in France. And neither are you.)

And before anyone calls me on it, I am using the extreme and satirical example above for effect, not to suggest any connection with between theists and shit-eating clowns.

HAHAHAHAH

Logical positivism is a dead-end project and has been for about fifty years. The main reason for it's failure is the inability to provide moral or aesthetic reasoning and, in a metaphysical sense, the inability to account for its own existence!

The metaphysic of logical positivism has been pretty much replaced by linguistic philosophy and universal pragmatics.

Your example of the shit-eating clown merely illustrates my point, and I thank you for it. The problem with the French legislation is that the basis of the decision is not on common grounds of health or standards of decency (as much as I query the latter), but rather on the assumed value of a symbol. Whilst I may be quite happy to drop the term "fundamentalist" (especially when compared to the state-sponsored atheism of China), surely you can see that they are not being secular in their approach to religion, but rather they are establishing atheism as a state religion.

Morals and aesthetics are not legitimately subject to reasoning, based as they are on unreasoned (although not unreasonable) emotion.

Indeed, France's decisions have nothing at all to do with Health or Decency. (Crackle, crackle, man of straw...)

Thanks for relinquishing "fundamentalist", however reluctantly. Unfortunately, I'm no more prepared to accept your "atheism as a state religion" claim (although I readily agree it's true of China, who have some solid historical precedents on which to fear theist insurgency). Like nakedness and sexual activity, France simply believes keeping religion a private matter is better for everyone. And frankly, the facts are with them:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Morals and aesthetics are not legitimately subject to reasoning, based as they are on unreasoned (although not unreasonable) emotion.

That was the logical positivist claim, which has been completely rejected by every school of philosophy in the world for the past fifty years. Indeed, now it held as an object of ridule - a position I find a little unkind because it did provide some useful starting points for Karl Popper's falsification theory.

Universal pragmatics provides a rational basis for moral and aesthetic reasoning.

Thanks for relinquishing "fundamentalist", however reluctantly

It wasn't reluctant at all. Checking the thread it is worth noting that I only applied it in the most tentative sense anyway.

[my] logical positivist claim [...] has been completely rejected by every school of philosophy in the world for the past fifty years. Indeed, now [is?] held as an object of [ridicule...]

Now you're making it sound cool as well as intuitively obvious. Of course, those criticisms are debatable; and universal pragmatics attempts to construe utility in "metaphysical statements", not evaluate their meaningfulness.

This has been fun, but I think my five minutes are up.

universal pragmatics attempts to construe utility in "metaphysical statements", not evaluate their meaningfulness.

This is not the case. Universal pragmatics engages in very precise definitions in what constitutes a meaningful and meaningless statement, along with what constitutes a rational, irrational and irrationalisable statement.

There are no "metaphysical claims"; there are only claims about the Universe (which only metaphysics, somewhat perversely, seeks to subdivide into "the natural world" and something else).

No, no, no. "Mystery is not the absence of meaning, but the presence of more meaning than we can comprehend." -- Dennis Covington

The unknown is not unnatural.

That icon always makes me laugh.

It's the expression on his face I think :) It's like he's saying "what do you think of my cowbell" for ever and ever hehehe

Sure, there's stuff we don't know. Sure, the unknown is not unnatural. Despite your Petrian denial, I'm not sure how we're in disagreement.

There need be no separation. The separation is in our knowledge - known and unknown. The metaphysical is just as much a part of the natural world as apples and pears.

I agree! I agree! Why are we arguing again? :)

Seriously, it was

tcpip who was claiming a special status for the "metaphysical", not me. Thoughts and ideas (no matter how apparently confusing or meaningless) are as much a part of the natural world as apples and pears, and the contents of thoughts/ideas are no different. It's only when one begins to accord the contents of thoughts a special status that "metaphysics" scuttles out from behind the wainscoting to frighten the children.

I don't think he did. Within the context of the accepted meaning of metaphysics he is correct when he says Every worldview has a metaphysical claim, even if that claim is that there is nothing other than the natural world..

But you are making the claim that the accepted definition is moot because there cannot be a separation. You're both correct in that sense.

i've gotta get with it and go to a gaming con. i can't wait till someone implements player controlled pen and paper games into MMORPGs. because from that point on, my life will END and begin anew as some sort of elf or undead creature.

It's D&D verses WoW...

http://craphound.com/images/wowdanddad.jpg

(thanks to

dr_nic

hehe yea i saw that off of www.boingboing.net and a couple other places. so good!

My GAWD you are a patient responsive man. hats off to you. Mucho admiration.

What is this admiration for? Patient and responsive, well, yes... but what is the particular instance?

you didnt get snarky although the topic appeared to be eugenics. that is better than I could do

Ahhh... eugenics... I could talk about race theory all day, believe me..

Hang on, why do health clinics in Northern Island need documentation in Tetum??!?

Your guess is as good as mine, but when people say "we will give you money if you can translate this" and I can do with a few more pennies, I'm not going to complain....

I've had fun explaining the Tetum terms for pregnancy and giving birth and the Tetum-Terik word for medicine. In quite a few cases I've had to default to Portuguese, with Tetum spelling..

Sweet as. Be good to have ya here. :)

I don't make many promises, but I keep those that I do make...

I know exactly what you mean. Under promise and over deliver. :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Unicon, Work, Elections and Racial and Religious Madness, Banned Rats!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject