Comments

  1. says

    Because Christian children have never bullied anyone because of their color or ethnicity. 

    Children do try to defend something they value by saying in a childish, high pitched voice, “but you do it too“.

    Hehe. The mothers and fathers here, get to work. We got loose children in the house.

  2. Charles Martel says

    Since Zach has a notoriously low reading comprehension level, I have to check in here with some mirth. The kid(s) is simply incapable of reading something without injecting his reflexive tut-tutism into it.

    I don’t believe I said that China nuking Islamic cities was a good thing, only that I hoped China would become a wild card. Islam, which has no core sense of right or wrong when it comes to how many bodies it’s willing to pile up, certainly would recognize an amoral peer in China, so would realize that China just might pull the trigger on it. Does it bother me that one thug culture might threaten another? Nah. 

    As for your hand wringing on behalf of the good, Zacky, you don’t know how much you convulse people in this room when you try to intone about moral matters. You come off as a utilitarian, probably atheistic, prig, quick to talk in generalities about other people’s obligations to act morally when you yourself constantly act unethically: You deliberately twist people’s statements (QED), you consciously reason fallaciously and offer red herrings instead of addressing questions directly and honestly, and you pretend to originality as you rush around the Internet mining other people’s texts. 

    Other than that, I think you’re one of the finest, most upstanding sophomores I’ve ever met.

     

  3. says

    Ymarsakar: Children do try to defend something they value by saying in a childish, high pitched voice, “but you do it too“.

    In other words, you shouldn’t condemn an entire culture for something that is common within your own culture.  
     
    Charles Martel: I don’t believe I said that China nuking Islamic cities was a good thing, only that I hoped China would become a wild card.

    Yes, you hoped that China would become a wild card and nuke Muslim countries, because it might indirectly solve or put off the threat Islam supposedly poses to civilization. Again, here’s the statement in full. 
     
    Charles Martel: I’m hoping the Chinese turn out to be the wild cards here. Islam despises any advanced culture, including China. So I don’t think China would spend much time hand wringing if it ever were to decide it was necessary to spank Islam by nuking Mecca, Damascus, Tehran or any other major outposts of the Religion of Peace. That might indirectly solve—or at least put off for a time—the threat Islam poses to civilization, western or eastern. Whether that would be enough to save a post-Obama America or a self-hating Europe is another matter.
     
    It’s difficult to read it otherwise. Of note, other commenters read it the same way and indicated agreement. Your clarification doesn’t help.
     
    Charles Martel: Does it bother me that one thug culture might threaten another? Nah. 

    A nuclear war in Asia would worry any rational person. The consequences would be millions of dead and millions of refugees, and a war that would spread globally.
     

  4. Mike Devx says

    So Charles Martel makes a comment about China nuking Muslim cities, #34, at 3/25 6:53 pm.

    Zachriel responds with criticism of *every reader* here at Book’s domain, that no one has objected to the idea of China nuking Muslim cities… and that Martel meant it would be positive, and that the lack of criticism means *everyone* approves!  Group Hug, we all agree!

    Zachriel makes this as comment #39 at 3/26, 7:16 am.

    At least Zach waited for four comments to be posted.  And waited twelve hours, eight of those hours being in the dead of night, of course, when most people are sleeping.

    In perusing those four comments – and in fact, the REST of the comments since then, I see overwhelming approval here among the Neanderthals.  Yep, we’re all agreeing enthusiastically, “Nuke muslim cities!  Capital idea, chap! Capital, truly capital!  Why didn’t I think of it myself?!?  Just a wonderful, brilliant, simply brilliant idea!”

    Uh…. no.  Never happened.  Not even ONCE.

    So, Zachriel must be held to Zachriel’s own standard, don’t you all think?  I saw a comment above about Mao Tse Tung and his Great Leap Forward, during which he murdered “millions of his own people.”  Let me clarify THAT:

    > The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths. Recent research puts the death toll somewhere between 36 and 45 million.

    Zachriel did NOT criticize Mao Tse Tung for this in the commentary in this forum. This means that Zachriel approves of this action, and actually is quite happy – ecstatic? – over the deaths of those 36 to 45 million people.  After all Zach, if you did not explicitly condemn it, you must be in approval!  Well done, O Mighty Tsk-Tsker!

    This could get quite fun.

  5. Mike Devx says

    Lt me add, in the comments above, I see analysis of the question: Would China nuke Muslim cities? A few people decided, yes they would.  Note that this does *not* indicate approval of the action.  Simply a belief that a nation once led by a man who would cavalierly murder 45 million of his own people would not hesitate to murder about 20 million Muslims in a select number of cities to end a threat.

    Analysis does not equal approval.  But that is an advanced concept that isn’t covered in “Conversational Gambits 101″.  I think it’s covered in the second semester class.

    Notice I am neither approving of nor disapproving of China’s decision.  I’m playing Zachriel’s little game here: Just offering up commentary, while refusing to state where I actually stand.  I stand above it all, an uber-mortal, offering God-like commentary and criticism from my exalted position, in my exalted state.  It’s heady to be so intelligent and above it all.  Granting all of you, with my naturally superior benevolence, the fruits of my superior position and knowledge.

    Nah, can’t do it anymore.  All I can say is, those who advocate utilitarian ethics – true of China nearly all the time, and true of all of those who believe that people exist to serve the State, not the other way around  –  those people tend to end up involved in the deaths of such millions of people.  The State proposes, the State imposes… and the State disposes of, too.

  6. Charles Martel says

    “I’m playing Zachriel’s little game here: Just offering up commentary, while refusing to state where I actually stand.  I stand above it all, an uber-mortal, offering God-like commentary and criticism from my exalted position, in my exalted state.  It’s heady to be so intelligent and above it all.  Granting all of you, with my naturally superior benevolence, the fruits of my superior position and knowledge.”

    Thank you, Mike. A perfect description. It must gall him that he has never changed one mind, here or on any of the other websites he has pestered. You’d think that omniscience would know such tactics don’t work.  

  7. says

    Zachriel: Someone suggests China nuking Muslim-populated cities, killing millions of people—as a good thing—, and no one takes exception. 

    Mike Devx: Zachriel responds with criticism of *every reader* here at Book’s domain, that no one has objected to the idea of China nuking Muslim cities…

    What we wrote is accurate. Certainly, if you weren’t available, then you couldn’t have taken exception. It’s easy to offer a counterexample. Let’s see what you do.
     
    Mike Devx: The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths. Recent research puts the death toll somewhere between 36 and 45 million.

    The Great Leap forward was an avoidable catastrophe, the result of ideology trumping individual rights. From the top on down, people committed great crimes in the name of the greater good.
     
    Mike Devx: Zachriel responds with criticism of *every reader* here at Book’s domain, that no one has objected to the idea of China nuking Muslim cities…

    We noticed that you took the time to protest the Great Leap Forward, which was not part of this discussion. So, do you hope, like Charles Martel, that China is the wildcard that nukes Muslim cities in order to save civilization, and with Ymarsakar that it has some chance of success and better than any other alternative? 
     
    Mike Devx: Would China nuke Muslim cities? A few people decided, yes they would.

    Under any reasonable scenario in today’s world, no, they wouldn’t. But that wasn’t the issue.  
     
    Mike Devx: Note that this does *not* indicate approval of the action.

    Charles Martel indicated that he *hoped* they would act as the wild card and nuke Muslim cities and that this might save civilization from the threat of Islam. 
     
    Mike Devx: Simply a belief that a nation once led by a man who would cavalierly murder 45 million of his own people would not hesitate to murder about 20 million Muslims in a select number of cities to end a threat.

    China today is not the same China as under Mao.
     
    Mike Devx: Analysis does not equal approval.  

    We agree—so that is not our area of disagreement. Charles Martel continued by pointing out he wouldn’t be bothered if “one thug culture might threaten another”. As we were discussing China using nuclear weapons, it is quite clear he has not repudiated that position. 
      
    Mike Devx: Just offering up commentary, while refusing to state where I actually stand.  
     
    That’s where we differ. China attacking any other nation with nuclear weapons would be a disaster for China and the world. A nuclear war in Asia would eventually involve the whole world. 
     
    Charles Martel: It must gall him that he has never changed one mind, here or on any of the other websites he has pestered.

    Not at all. Though we allow for the possibility, and respect those with contrary views, our primary purpose is to point out to the readers of this blog untenable or unsupportable positions, especially extreme views, such as hoping for cities to be destroyed by nuclear attack. 
     

  8. SADIE says

    “…our primary purpose is to point out to the readers of this blog untenable or unsupportable positions,…”
     
    Hmm…would that include one of  yours – “keep talking”
     
    At what point, when does one stop talking? To be extra clear here…how many bodies need there be, 5, 50, 500, 5,000 higher? Can I get a body bag count from the z-group.
     
    Nah…you’re sole  purpose is to be the center of attention with a really snotty attitude. Mr. Morality, I have got news for you – You think you’re #hit doesn’t stink, but your farts give you away!
     
     

  9. Charles Martel says

    Here’s an interesting tidbit I picked up at one of the websites where Zach made a reputation before attaching on us. It’s located at http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-intron-research-reveals-same-old.html
    See if his pattern there isn’t tiresomely the same as it is with us:

    Joe G Said…
    Zachriel: Evolution refers to changes in the heritable traits of a population.
    That is one definition. There are several.
    And I am sure no one debates that.
    You can also say that evolution is the change in allele frequency over time.
    We have been down this road before also.
    It appears that you enjoy being willfully ignorant. [Martel's emphasis]
    http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006/09/biological-evolution-what-is-being.html
    So ID is not anti-evolution and Creation is not anti-evolution.
    I am sure you will do everything in your power to correct all those forums who say otherwise. [Martel's emphasis]
    But all of that misses my point.
    Martel: Amen, long-suffering Joe G, amen.

  10. Charles Martel says

    It continues:
    Joe G: IOW once again all you can do is provide a distraction.
    Zachriel: Joshua Lederberg won the Nobel Prize for discovering that bacteria can mate and exchange genes.
    Joe G: I know what he did.
    I also know that doesn’t address the type and range of communications that we now know exists.
    I take you don’t know either. Your ignorance is not a refutation.
    Zachriel: In any case, there is no communication between the bacterial plates, so that is not a valid objection to the finding that the mutations involved are random with respect to fitness.
    Joe G: Why does there have to be communication between the plates? My scenario doesn’t require that.
    IOW, all you have is equivocation and a strawman.
    You must be very proud of yourself.

    Martel: What you see here is a pattern of willful disruption, based on whatever (mis)information Zach can rush around and rip off the Internet, then return and pretend is his own.

  11. says

    Charles Martel: Zach{riel} is a duck in a shooting gallery.

    Meaning you can pretend to ignore the point by spewing ad hominem attacks. Joe G’s misunderstanding of the Lederberg Experiment is also irrelevant. We note for the reader that you didn’t present any defense of your position. 
     

  12. suek says

    >>Zack, surprise us and man up and actually answer a simple question: What is the basis of your morality?>>
     
    Heh.  Asked and (never) answered.
     
    (and no way do I intend to go back and find the comment or the thread…!)

  13. SADIE says

    suek – it never answers any direct questions “let me note for the readers” : )
     
    Charles Martel, summed it up very well – “a duck in a shooting gallery”
     
    z-group is a quack of bologna ;)

  14. says

    suek: Asked and (never) answered.

    We have answered it. We have an inordinate fondness for humans (and beetles). 

    You may preface our previous statements with, “If you accept that human life has value, then …”, for instance, “If you accept that human life has value, then a nuclear war in Asia would be folly.” Do you reject the premise? 

     

  15. Charles Martel says

    Mike Devx: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir Knight.
    [Zach doesn't respond]
    Danny Lemieux: I am Daniel, King of the Bookworm Room.
    [no response from Zach]
     
    SADIE:  I seek the bravest and the finest knights in the land who will join me in my court at Camelot.
    [no response from Zach]
    Charles Martel: You have proved yourself worthy. Will you join me?
    [no response from Zach]
    SFC Dave: You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy!
    [attempts to get around Zach]
    Zach: None shall pass.
    MacG: What?
    Zach: None shall pass!
    jj: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight. But I must cross this bridge.
    Zach: Then you shall die.
    Mike Devx: I command you, as King of the Bookworms, to stand aside!
    Zach: I move for no man.
    Danny Lemieux: So be it!
    [they fight until Danny cuts off Zach’s left arm]
    SADIE:  Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!
    Zach: ‘Tis but a scratch!
    suek: A scratch? Your arm’s off!
    Zach: No, it isn’t!
    Charles Martel:  Well, what’s that then?
    Zach: I’ve had worse.
    SFC Dave: You liar!
    Zach: Come on, you pansy!
    [they fight again. SFC Dave cuts off Zach’s right arm]
    jj: Victory is mine!
    [kneels to pray]
    Mike Devx: We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy –
    [cut off by Zach kicking him]
    Zach: Come on, then.
    Charles Martel: What?
    Zach: Have at you!
    SADIE:  You are indeed brave, Zacky, but the fight is mine!
    Zach:  Oh, had enough, eh?
    Danny Lemieux: Look, you stupid bastard. You’ve got no arms left!
     

  16. suek says

    >>Do you reject the premise?>>
     
    That human life has unique value??  Maybe.
     
    All humans have a limited life span.  Whether they die from a bomb or from the depredation of time and nature is irrelevant to the “uniqueness” of the human.
     
    However, if in fact there is a God and an afterlife, and if we are judged for that afterlife by our actions in this life, then there is a  responsibility for the rightness and wrongness of our actions that _is_ unique.  The rightness or wrongness of our actions have to be determined by God’s laws – if not, there are no other laws.
     
    And no one is responsible for the actions of another – individual or national.

  17. says

    suek: That human life has unique value??  Maybe. All humans have a limited life span.  Whether they die from a bomb or from the depredation of time and nature is irrelevant to the “uniqueness” of the human. However, if in fact there is a God and an afterlife, and if we are judged for that afterlife by our actions in this life, then there is a  responsibility for the rightness and wrongness of our actions that _is_ unique. 

    That can be an internally consistent viewpoint. If someone thinks God wants a nuclear war in Asia for some ineffable purpose, then there is no way to argue with that person. They can only be stopped before they initiate a conflict that kills billions of people. Keep in mind, though, that people don’t work in cultural vacuums. Hence, for those who believe that the destruction inherent in nuclear war should be avoided, reducing the chance of such a war is a useful endeavor. For those who place little value on living people, or those in the out-group, it would not be so.
     
    suek: And no one is responsible for the actions of another – individual or national.

    That’s right. People are responsible for their own actions. That means that if someone encourages an action, or makes the environment conducive to such an action, such as by breeding hatred of an entire people, then they have some degreee of responsibility for the consequences.
     

  18. SADIE says

    suek, you always link such interesting articles for us to read. Thought I would respond in kind with this list.
    Note, how many ‘jackasses’ are at the top of the money heap.
     
    Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010
    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
     
    p.s. I loved z & Co.’s last paragraph.
    “People are responsible for their own actions. That means that if someone encourages an action, or makes the environment conducive to such an action, such as by breeding hatred of an entire people, then they have some degreee of responsibility for the consequences.”

    Does that mean if z-folks have some degree of culpability if our patience turns sour ;)

  19. Charles Martel says

    SADIE, no. He is casting pearls before swine, therefore it is our fault that we cannot understand his exalted reasoning.  Speaking of, here’s another comment from the website I referred to above:
    Joseph: Again transitional forms, by their very nature, would violate the distinct boundary requirement of nested hierarchy. Zachriel always ignores that and every refutation put forth and keeps babbling incoherently in the face of those refutations.
    So here is what I can do: I challenge Zachriel to a debate- we each put up $10,000 USD — we get a panel of referees (the loser also pays for the refs and the venue) and have it out.
    Zachriel the intellectual coward will not put up. What does that say about his intellectual position?
    (Of course Joseph was right. Zach lacked the cojones or knowledge to respond and continued Dukakising the topic even though almost everybody else on the board could see that he didn’t know what he was talking about.)
     

  20. suek says

    >>If someone thinks God wants a nuclear war in Asia for some ineffable purpose, then there is no way to argue with that person.>>
     
    Irrelevant.  The point wasn’t “what does a person think God wants”, the question was “does human life have unique value”.  What God “wants” is irrelevant.  The point is that either you accept that God created man and has bestowed a unique value on each human, or you believe that humans are simply a species that has resulted from a spontaneous godless evolution.  In that case, the human is simply another species, and has no unique value.
     
     

  21. says

    suek: The point is that either you accept that God created man and has bestowed a unique value on each human, or you believe that humans are simply a species that has resulted from a spontaneous godless evolution.  In that case, the human is simply another species, and has no unique value.

    Incorrect on both points.

    Someone can value humans, without reference to theism. Why, even a mother rabbit values her own children more than other creatures. 

    And a devout Christian might think God wants the Jews to be purged from Christian society, their synagogues and holy books burned, their homes razed, and be put to forced labor, so that God might see that they are Christians. 
      

  22. says

    Reposting: Z apparently cannot think of a plan at all, even a bad one.
    It’s 10 years too early for you Z to question those with more experience than you. http   :// ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/okinawa-and-japan/
    I researched Okinawa’s history and this is what happened as a result, I wrote a long digest on it.
    For those of you that wish to learn more about Japan and the various contradictions you may detect in Japanese thought or deed, I highly encourage you to read what I found.
    Some of it is very enlightening. And it explains a lot that you may not get from the media’s hysterical “disaster” proclamations.
    And it goes well with suek’s link on Aikawai
     

  23. says

    We know that you think that Z. As for whether CHristians think that, that is undetermined.

    Value is both relative and objective. A child either has value or does not, but it is totally independent of whether that child is valued by others, particularly individuals. Obama has values no child other than his own, in fact stomping on them after they survive abortion attempts is deemed by him as fitting, correct, and legislatively constitutional and proper. But that has little to do with how much Obama values his own kids.

    This distinction may be hard for Leftist hive minds to get, Z ,but you’re just going to have work for it.

  24. says

    Zachriel: And a devout Christian might think God wants the Jews to be purged from Christian society, their synagogues and holy books burned, their homes razed, and be put to forced labor, so that God might see that they are Christians. 

    Ymarsakar: As for whether CHristians think that, that is undetermined. 
     
    We didn’t say Christians always think Jews should be purged, only that some might. Perhaps you can think of someone who fits the description.

    Suek made a broad claim encompassing all non-theists, that they have no particular attachment to humans, while theists do. The overgeneralization doesn’t recognize the wide variety of views within each group. (Suek also presented the false dichotomy between theism and evolution, but that is somewhat tangential.)
     

  25. says

    Ymarsakar: Value is both relative and objective. A child either has value or does not, but it is totally independent of whether that child is valued by others, particularly individuals.

    That’s the very definition of subjective.

  26. says

    Ymarsakar: Value is both relative and objective. A child either has value or does not, but it is totally independent of whether that child is valued by others, particularly individuals.

    Sorry. We may have misread your statement. How do you determine, objectively, the value of a child?
     

  27. suek says

    >>they have no particular attachment to humans, while theists do>>
     
    There you go again.  Who said anything about “particular attachments”?
     
    The question, once again, was about humans having unique value…nothing about how other humans value those to whom they are personally attached.
     
    >>Suek also presented the false dichotomy between theism and evolution, but that is somewhat tangential.>>
     
    Not exactly.  Evolution is not necessarily a contradiction of theism.  While there are those who _do_ hold the view that a belief in God deems creation as described in Genesis as the only explanation of creation, there are many – including the Catholic church – who consider that God may have created all life and humans in six days, but it’s equally possible (and even probable) that God created all life and humans over six trillion days.  Nevertheless, those who consider evolution to be responsible for the human being frequently do so as a means for denying the existence of God.  I believe you are among that group.
     
    Let me make it simpler.  If God created humans – by whatever means – then humans have a unique value because He gave them that value.  If humans developed through a mechanism of nature and natural law and there is _no_ God involved, then humans are merely another species that inhabits this planet, and have no unique value.
     
    Mother love for her offspring to the the contrary, the unique value of a human has nothing to do with who or how many others are deeply attached to them.  Otherwise, those who have died in Japan have no value in many cases since all who were attached to them are also dead.  No attachment, no value (according to Z).
     
    By the way…that mother love is also a function of evolution…

  28. says

    suek: Nevertheless, those who consider evolution to be responsible for the human being frequently do so as a means for denying the existence of God.  I believe you are among that group.

    Not at all. 
     
    suek: If God created humans – by whatever means – then humans have a unique value because He gave them that value. 

    If God created beetles – by whatever means – then beetles have a unique value because He gave them that value.
     
    suek: If humans developed through a mechanism of nature and natural law and there is _no_ God involved, then humans are merely another species that inhabits this planet, and have no unique value.

    Your use of the term “unique value” is problematic and ad hoc. The term usually means irreplacable value, that is, something of value that can’t be replaced even by another. Isn’t it reasonable to say someone finds their wife or children or country or humanity to be of unique value? 
      
    suek: Otherwise, those who have died in Japan have no value in many cases since all who were attached to them are also dead. 

    Many people value those lost in Japan. They consider them part of the human family. 
     

     

  29. says

    suek: The point is that either you accept that God created man and has bestowed a unique value on each human, or you believe that humans are simply a species that has resulted from a spontaneous godless evolution.  In that case, the human is simply another species, and has no unique value.

    Zachriel: And a devout Christian might think God wants the Jews to be purged from Christian society, their synagogues and holy books burned, their homes razed, and be put to forced labor, so that God might see that they are Christians. 

    It’s not clear you answered this. God may have created people with unique value, and others without unique value. One group might claim to be the Chosen People. Others might claim they are rejected and condemned. 
     

  30. suek says

    >>If God created beetles – by whatever means – then beetles have a unique value because He gave them that value.>>
     
    If everything has unique value, then nothing has unique value.  It is no longer unique.
     
    >>It’s not clear you answered this. God may have created people with unique value, and others without unique value. One group might claim to be the Chosen People. Others might claim they are rejected and condemned. >>
     
    Not “people”.  Not even “part of the human family”.  Each individual human being.  One alone.  Individual.
     
    >>The term usually means irreplacable value>>
     
    Disagree.  Only because you link it with value.  Irreplaceable, yes – in the sense that each human is one of a kind, and one cannot be substituted for another.  Unique in the sense that no other creature has the same rights and responsibilities as  humans.  Humans are exceptional…they are the exception.
     
    >>Which belies the idea that evolution is a zero-sum game. >>
     
    Sorry.  I don’t understand that statement.

  31. says

    Zachriel: If God created beetles – by whatever means – then beetles have a unique value because He gave them that value.

    suek: If everything has unique value, then nothing has unique value.  It is no longer unique.

    Only beetles, then. 
     
    suek: If everything has unique value, then nothing has unique value.  It is no longer unique.

    Virtually every human is unique. How odd. Indeed, so are beetles!
     
    suek: Not “people”.  Not even “part of the human family”.  Each individual human being.  One alone.  Individual.

    Yes, we understand your position. Each is uniquely valuable. Some people would disagree, as already pointed out. 
     
    Zachriel: The term {unique value} usually means irreplacable value. 

    suek: Disagree.  Only because you link it with value.  

    Perhaps because it’s part of the term. 
     
    suek: Humans are exceptional.

    Yes, that is your view. That’s not an argument; however, if we share the view, then it can be a premise for further discussion. 
     

  32. says

    Zachriel: Which belies the idea that evolution is a zero-sum game. 
     
    suek: Sorry.  I don’t understand that statement.

    A zero-sum game, or a strictly competitive game, is one where for every winner, there has to be a loser. It’s common to think that evolution only concerns competition, when mechanisms of cooperation, even altruism, are often very powerful in terms of evolutionary success.

  33. SADIE says

    Charles Martel
     
    This has your DNA all over it.
     
     
    You might not have given much thought to it—perhaps no one you know suffers from this addiction—but the most dangerous mind-altering substance afflicting Americans today is a drug called Interventitron. Developed in 1917 by the Princeton researcher (and American President) Woodrow Wilson, Interventitron is better known by street names applied to various brands by different dealers:
     
     
    Read on…
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/this-is-your-brain-on-interventitron.html

Leave a Reply