Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On 5/8/05, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can get a cup of DDT from an environmental laboratory near here - wanna drink? Want to feed it to the neighborhood birds? Noisy critters anyway. That whole Mother Nature stuff is just so gay. -- Gary Denton And that whole knowing even a tiny thing about what you're talking about is so overrated. Why on earth would any pesticide company bother to fund a campaign in favor of DDT? Should I use sarcasm mode on sarcasm mode off? Was not my last statement a clue? To your question - They are not. Going after the DDT ban and blaming environmentalists for the death of millions is a way to smear the environmental movement. This is in the large corporations and conservatives' major agenda list, carried in Norquist's hip pocket for the last twenty years. They wouldn't make money off of DDT. It's an old chemical. Banning DDT was a small, but non-trivial, windfall for the pesticide companies. DDT is currently being manufactured by a single factory in India and it's _still_ a dirt-cheap chemical. I wouldn't terribly want to drink DDT. But I'd probably be safer drinking it than I would the other chemicals that we use for insect suppression _instead_ of DDT. You can follow the link I provided where a major writer confesses to the reasons why he was paid to write corporate swill on the environmental movement. In addition, the environmentalists and public health ministries were not crying out for a ban on DDT. They were urging its use be restricted to fight malaria. In studies at the time the turning away from DDT came about in several countries because the agricultural sector was using it with abandon promoting resistance in mosquitoes. There were problems with the underfunded programs. Even giving all that we were right to ban DDT or restrict it use to life-threatening instances. Incredible as it might seem, while public health officials were cautiously limiting the usage of DDT, it was being used in increasing amounts in agriculture, especially on cotton, a cash crop (Chapin Wasserstrom). This heavy use led to resistance among malaria carrying mosquitoes throughout the tropics. In this instance, the unwise use of DDT, rather than improving life, actually resulted in a resurgence of malaria. According to Chapin Wasserstrom (page 183) Correlating the use of DDT in El Salvador with renewed malaria transmission, it can be estimated that at current rates each kilo of insecticide added to the environment will generate 105 new cases of malaria. Not surprisingly, anti-environmentalists ignore or downplay the importance of insect resistance. There is no mention of the problem in *Trashing the Planet*, *Eco-Sanity *or* Facts not Fear*. *Toxic Terror*, which has a twenty six page chapter on The DDT Debate, devotes just one paragraph to the issue. There is no mention of the impact of DDT resistance on the war against malaria. The eradication program ended not because of any environmental concerns, but because it did not work. The mosquitoes had grown resistant to insecticides, and the microorganisms that cause malaria had become resistant to the drugs used against them. In many areas the numbers of cases of malaria greatly exceeded what it was before the effort was started. If events had been different, if DDT had not been used heavily in agriculture and there was no shortage of funds the outcome might have been different. Malaria might have joined smallpox as a disease that had been eliminated from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, such was not the case. As early as 1967 it was clear that the effort had failed, and in 1972 the official policy shifted from eradication to control of malaria. DDT was not banned in any developed country till the 1970s (Curtis). It was not banned in the United States, that hotbed of environmental hysteria, until 1972, and even then there were exemptions for health emergencies and some agricultural uses. The anti-environmental claim that some third world countries that were fighting malaria banned the pesticide back in 1964 stretches our credulity, to say the least. Certainly such a ban would generate a great deal of press coverage, as well as protests from the affected citizens and the international agencies that were trying to eradicate malaria. But the anti-environmentalists produce no such evidence. The only proof that is offered that the suspensions were related to environmental concerns was that they occurred after the publication of *Silent Spring*. But this is a post hoc ergo propter hochttp://info-pollution.com/evidence.htm#Post(after this, therefore because of it) fallacy, no cause and effect was established. None of the authors who repeated this claim appear to have considered that there might be an alternative
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On 14 Apr 2005, at 3:08 am, Dan Minette wrote: Well, some people do that, but I always lower my respect a notch for folks who will not accept that they are sometimes wrongunless they are Feynman and the subject is physics. Lord knows I argue tooth and nail. But, I work at precision in my arguementsparticularly written arguements. I usually leave outs for reasonable people to disagree. It allows for a graceful retreat when necessary. Saying I don't see the justification for something allows someone to give the justification and then for me to pleasantly acknowledge it. I expect to see your disclaimers in place in future then. Next time you mention God just put (an idea for which there is no evidence or logical argument but which I believe anyway just because I want to and admit I might be wrong about) every after occurrence. Same goes for your other nonsense. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Invest in a company any idiot can run because sooner or later any idiot is going to run it. - Warren Buffet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On 4/7/05, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying that Warren been trying to prevent democracy in Iraq? Functionally, yes. What does that mean? It means that there wasn't a third option between going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was even vaguely plausible. You could choose one or the other. False, this is recent history you are talking about. The alternative plan was for aggressive weapons inspections backed by the use of force. Somehow the UN didn't think Bush and Powell had anything credible showing there were WMDs in Iraq. I had recently reviewed all the arguments Bush and his White House press secretary used leading up to the war. WMDs was almost the only one. In Gulf War 1 Bush the fist did not bring up Saddam using gas. The time he used it was too close and they didn't want to remind people that the US had provided the helicopters, the raw materials, the training for Iraqi scientists, the satellite photos, and Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand afterwards and said don't worry about this - we'll ignore hose damn liberals in the UN and Congress. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On 4/6/05, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bottom line, you denegate rich white liberals for no particular reason other than to create your usual demons. Bob, what is it about you that makes you _unable_ to credit people who disagree with you about honest motives? I mean, really, this is why I'm so reluctant to discuss things with you. I denigrate the rich white liberals who made this decision because they're the people who, consistently, make self-flattering decisions that (in this case) have led to hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of deaths. You're a rich white liberal. I don't denigrate you. The myth that humantiarians are leading the fight against the banning of DDT beacuase it has led to millions of poor people duying is a well-funded campaign by (surprise!) the large pesticide companies. A very well-funded campaign for a number of years. http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q4/panic.html In 1997, ACSH released a special report in pamphlet form titled Facts Versus Fears: A Review of the 20 Greatest Unfounded Health Scares of Recent Times. Compiled by ACSH Director of Media and Development Adam Lieberman, the list included DDT, cyclamates, the hormone DES in beef, the chemical contamination of Love Canal, dioxin at Times Beach, and asbestos. Lieberman's study devoted approximately one and a half pages to each scare, including footnotes (which draw heavily on Whelan's writings). A mass mailing of Facts Versus Fears to journalists generated countless uncritical stories in which reporters, ranging from Jane Brody of the *New York Times *to William Wineke of the *Wisconsin State Journal, *repeated Lieberman's conclusions or simply quoted them verbatim. Paul Harvey described it as meticulously documented. An editorial in the *Kentucky Enquirer *used arguments from Facts Versus Fears to conclude that we have plenty of reason and experience to be wary of overreacting to issues driven by ideology rather than sound science. Not long after its publication, however, Lieberman himself underwent a political change of heart and published a confessional in *Mother Jones *in which he admitted that his own work was motivated primarily by conservative ideology. Morever, he noted, ACSH itself was engaged in fear-mongering. I was placed in the position of suggesting that the future of society was in jeopardy if consumers rejected the use of the fat substitute olestra or the milk-producing growth hormone rBST in cows, he stated. I can get a cup of DDT from an environmental laboratory near here - wanna drink? Want to feed it to the neighborhood birds? Noisy critters anyway. That whole Mother Nature stuff is just so gay. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 8 May 2005 10:46:57 -0500, Gary Denton wrote In the days that have passed since we all talked about our options with regard to Iraq, I realized that I left out one of the most important ones. And since Gary brought it up again, I'll take this opportunity. The idea that we must restrict ourselves to options that have a provable liklihood of success is faithless and not borne out by history. I'll offer a very simple explanation, by way of the same illustrations I used before. What if Ghandi had waited for a practical plan that was likely to succeed? Nelson Mandela? Abolitionists in the United States? And countless others who did what they believe was right, without any idea or good reason to hope for success, whose movements and actions succeeded anyway? To seek peaceful change is almost always impractical. It seems as though when the stakes are highest, we are least likely to be able to use logic to prove how to maximize the liklihood of a desired outcome. But this is the essence of faith and hope, and history is full of stories of people who did great things with a big vision and small actions, rather than big plans that try to control the outcome. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can get a cup of DDT from an environmental laboratory near here - wanna drink? Want to feed it to the neighborhood birds? Noisy critters anyway. That whole Mother Nature stuff is just so gay. -- Gary Denton And that whole knowing even a tiny thing about what you're talking about is so overrated. Why on earth would any pesticide company bother to fund a campaign in favor of DDT? They wouldn't make money off of DDT. It's an old chemical. Banning DDT was a small, but non-trivial, windfall for the pesticide companies. DDT is currently being manufactured by a single factory in India and it's _still_ a dirt-cheap chemical. I wouldn't terribly want to drink DDT. But I'd probably be safer drinking it than I would the other chemicals that we use for insect suppression _instead_ of DDT. But God forbid you should actually conduct an intelligent risk analysis instead of just parroting the leftist line. Out of curiousity, Gary, is there _any_ issue where I couldn't predict your position with flawless accuracy by moving about three standard deviations to the left of the American mainstream? Even one? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 10:53 PM Wednesday 4/20/2005, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 20, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Let this be a warning to you. _Never_ mix metaphors with alcohol. Dan M. Also, never mix calculus with alcohol. Don't drink and derive. Clearly the best thing to be when doing calculus is stoned. You deserve a prize for that one. I can't think of an appropriate one at the moment, though. Julia Don't make it too big, something infinitesimal will do just fine. Only if you're non-standard. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 19, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] You completely missed the point of what I wrote. I'm not saying anything at all about people who accept occasional correction (BTW there are several others on this very list who refuse to admit to being in error, yet I don't see you hammering them over it). All I'm saying, and I said it very clearly, is that for the most part most of us behave, most of the time, as though our opinions are actually Absolute Truth. It is probably true that many people do that. Thank you. I've been trained to not do thatand I've noticed that people who are skilled in scholarship tend not to that. Hmm. If you had to be taught it, does it surprise you that the skill -- which might well be acquired, not innate -- is not universally to be found? My own background is probably working against me here. As a writer, consumer and editor of fiction I tend to prefer phrases that engender strong reactions in readers. That kind of incisive, sometimes confrontational language, coupled with presentation of ideas that might go against the grain of thinking in readers, is something I find stimulating. One of the reasons I like Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, for instance, is that I can see, very clearly, how carefully he constructed his Lunar society to give room for his ideas to function. But as I read that book I was constantly aware of how very impractical, to me at least, his tenets were; that is, in the real world, without the constructs he'd erected to support them, I think his ideologies would quickly collapse. What I mean is that I just don't agree with his politics as presented in that novel, but I thought it was well-done as a polemic anyway, because it was quite internally consistent, even where a lot of his characters' reactions and behaviors (to me) simply couldn't work in application. I did almost the same thing in _The Beasts of Delphos_, though that was before I'd read his book. The ideal society the Delphan Newfreemen erect is something that I'm not sure would actually work without a deep value placed on lifelong education for *every* member of a population, including heavy exposure to alternate points of view, coupled with the isolation that comes of an entire planet inhabited by like-minded individuals and separated from other worlds by distances of lightyears. That is, _Moon_ and _Delphos_ are similar to the extent that in them societies which are totally insular and made up of like-minded people are proposed, and it's not too surprising that in both fairy tales things magically work out for the best. ;) The other thing I liked in Heinlein's opus was the pidgin he used in the text, BTW. I thought it was a really interesting voice to use for the story. But the point is that while you're working from one space of experience and promotion of thought, I'm working from another one, and I think we both have acquired behaviors that in some places just don't intersect, which seems to generate sparks from time to time. The combination of this is that we are taught to both form opionions, even though we are not sure, and to develop mechanisms for weighing the certainty of each opinion so that the best consensus opinion may be obtained. Someone who always rates his certainty as 10 on a scale of 1-10 will have their 10s automatically downgraded (unless they are Feynmanesq. :-) ) OK, fine -- but I don't always rate my certainties as 10. Only the things that I really feel pretty sure of. There are definitely times when I'll get hyperbolic, but that's not the same thing as saying I've got Absolute Certainty in an opinion, only that I'm using incendiary language to put forth a point. To be fair I don't always make the distinction when I comment on something, which surely doesn't help anyone else decide whether I think I'm right or I'm just blowing hot gas. ;) When I was the scientist in an engineering group, these skills came in handy. I worked with field people who were not as educated as I was, but knew a lot that I didn't. I realized that they were sometimes right and I was wrong...often because they had key data that I didn't. Sometimes, I did state virtual certainty if that's the problem, then we have a Nobel Prize on our hands But I saved that for when I was willing to stake _a lot_ on being absolutely right. AFAIK, I never was in a position of being wrong. That last sentence is interesting. Do you mean you don't *recall* being wrong, or that you never were wrong, or that you were just cautious in areas you were unsure and retracted ideas regularly? If the last, I'd suggest that a retraction is equivalent to admitting being wrong. If the second, well ... and if the first, well again, but in a different tone of voice. Or do you mean instead that in any area where you didn't feel qualified, you didn't express an opinion at all? I'm not sure I've ever seen you
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:46 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) On Apr 19, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmm. If you had to be taught it, does it surprise you that the skill -- which might well be acquired, not innate -- is not universally to be found? No, I'm not surprised at all. My own background is probably working against me here. As a writer, consumer and editor of fiction I tend to prefer phrases that engender strong reactions in readers. That kind of incisive, sometimes confrontational language, coupled with presentation of ideas that might go against the grain of thinking in readers, is something I find stimulating. OK, I follow that so far. One of the reasons I like Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_, for instance, is that I can see, very clearly, how carefully he constructed his Lunar society to give room for his ideas to function. But as I read that book I was constantly aware of how very impractical, to me at least, his tenets were; that is, in the real world, without the constructs he'd erected to support them, I think his ideologies would quickly collapse. Agreed. What I mean is that I just don't agree with his politics as presented in that novel, but I thought it was well-done as a polemic anyway, because it was quite internally consistent, even where a lot of his characters' reactions and behaviors (to me) simply couldn't work in application. The other thing I liked in Heinlein's opus was the pidgin he used in the text, BTW. I thought it was a really interesting voice to use for the story. That helped give his society a organic feel; I agree it was effective. But the point is that while you're working from one space of experience and promotion of thought, I'm working from another one, and I think we both have acquired behaviors that in some places just don't intersect, which seems to generate sparks from time to time. OK, that seems reasonable. The problem to be solved, then, is how to keep this from interfering with communication. OK, fine -- but I don't always rate my certainties as 10. Only the things that I really feel pretty sure of. There are definitely times when I'll get hyperbolic, but that's not the same thing as saying I've got Absolute Certainty in an opinion, only that I'm using incendiary language to put forth a point. To be fair I don't always make the distinction when I comment on something, which surely doesn't help anyone else decide whether I think I'm right or I'm just blowing hot gas. ;) I wouldn't mind having to ask which is it from time to time if you don't mind being asked. If we agree that you sometimes use hyperbola and sometimes take strong serious positions, this seems like an obvious thing to do. That last sentence is interesting. Do you mean you don't *recall* being wrong, or that you never were wrong, or that you were just cautious in areas you were unsure and retracted ideas regularly? Oh, that sentence was not intended to be interpreted that way (althought I can see why you would read it that way). I've been wrong plenty of times. I just have not been wrong on those occasions when I invoked the Nobel Prize arguement. I'll give an example of the use of this. One district engineer told me that his equipment was working just fine, it was just that this particular source had statistical uncertainty that was different from the theoretical statistical uncertainty. I won't bore you with the details, but the statistical distribution of 1 second count rates for a gamma ray detector is well approximated by a Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of sqrt(cps) (as long as the cps is sufficiently high so the Gaussian distribution does not get close to zero). He was arguing, in his case, the numbers were far different than that. I told him I could guarantee _that_ wasn't the problem, and if it was we'd be rich from the Nobel prize money for falsifying QM. I was very careful not to invoke that without that type of assurance. If you told me that you had a perpetual motion machine that took heat out of the earth and did work without putting heat in a colder body, I'd use it. I didn't use it when you stated string theory removed indetermancies because I was only 99% sure that was wrong. (it was actually infinitieswhich does make sense.) As it happens I've seen some very absolutist statements coming from Gautam, regular use of adjectives such as absurd and nonsense, etc., and yet I don't see you calling him out on his language like you've chosen to target me. OK, a fair observation. You are right that I don't do it. I cannot remember when he used such strong language and I called him on it. The reason for this isn't automatic deference to his education. It's
Fwd: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (quoting Warren, whose post I still haven't got): That's just the empty cant of ideologically and morally bereft leftist extremists To be fair, I should not have said this. I was tired and frustrated when I wrote it. It's just that I've heard this said, over and over and over again, and I, and many other people, have rebutted it over and over and over again, and none of the people saying this have ever even bothered to respond to the points made, over and over and over again, that this is a ridiculous thing to say. It's just a profoundly ridiculous argument, one made entirely without evidence or argument, and I'm just tired of hearing it over and over again. I don't know what the literary equivalent to this would be - someone telling you, over and over again, that a mixed metaphor is gramatically correct even when you send him hour grammar textbooks saying otherwise? It's just a ridiculous argument, and I'm tired of it, and I tend to get frustrated when I hear it, over and over and over again. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:08 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) I don't know what the literary equivalent to this would be - someone telling you, over and over again, that a mixed metaphor is gramatically correct even when you send him hour grammar textbooks saying otherwise? Let this be a warning to you. _Never_ mix metaphors with alcohol. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 20, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (quoting Warren, whose post I still haven't got): Well, you need to take me out of your trash filter, man. (Yes, that was meant to be wry.) That's just the empty cant of ideologically and morally bereft leftist extremists To be fair, I should not have said this. I was tired and frustrated when I wrote it. It's just that I've heard this said, over and over and over again, and I, and many other people, have rebutted it over and over and over again, and none of the people saying this have ever even bothered to respond to the points made, over and over and over again, that this is a ridiculous thing to say. This I understand. There are plenty of times when I've thought, oh no, not *that* tired old hobbyhorse again. There are also times when I've made an end run around all the arguments leading up to whatever a given conclusion might be and simply jumped right to the end. (That usually comes back to bite me.) There've been some times when I've just not responded to the stuff that makes my eyes roll; I can't recall offhand if that's worked in the long run or not, but it sure can make for some short replies sometimes. I don't know what the literary equivalent to this would be - someone telling you, over and over again, that a mixed metaphor is gramatically correct even when you send him hour grammar textbooks saying otherwise? More on the order, perhaps, of cliches -- they're just appalling, don't add any value to a narrative, and almost always can be replaced with something much more creative, colorful and effective with just a little thought. They feel like placeholders when I come across them -- almost like the author needed to put *something* there, and always meant to go back and fix it, but somehow just never did. (Though there are some authors that just use them and don't care; I tend not to read their works, as it's no good at all for my blood pressure.) Won't disagree that the war for oil argument really isn't; there's a lot wrong with the assertion, but possibly your correspondent at the time (Doug?) was also tired. The corollary could be the war to get the WMDs away from Saddam story, which was still being promoted even when it was looking increasingly unlikely (post invasion) that Iraq had had any in its possession for years. IIRC recent polls indicate that a significant minority of Americans still believe that Iraq *did* have unconventional weapons, and that they were seized by US forces. I don't think anyone's seriously promoting the WMD idea any more, but for a while there it was as tiresome to me as the war-for-oil mantra seems to be for you. And yeah, as you observed, people do things for more than one reason; many people -- possibly all people -- can actually carry multiple and mutually-contradictory views, and yet behave in a way that is consistent to many nines. Nations, being bodies of people, logically must be capable of similar behavior -- but maybe that's best taken up on the other thread. ANYway, thanks for the comments; they're appreciated. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:08 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) I don't know what the literary equivalent to this would be - someone telling you, over and over again, that a mixed metaphor is gramatically correct even when you send him hour grammar textbooks saying otherwise? Let this be a warning to you. _Never_ mix metaphors with alcohol. Dan M. Also, never mix calculus with alcohol. Don't drink and derive. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 20, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Let this be a warning to you. _Never_ mix metaphors with alcohol. Dan M. Also, never mix calculus with alcohol. Don't drink and derive. Clearly the best thing to be when doing calculus is stoned. You deserve a prize for that one. I can't think of an appropriate one at the moment, though. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 20, 2005, at 8:44 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Let this be a warning to you. _Never_ mix metaphors with alcohol. Dan M. Also, never mix calculus with alcohol. Don't drink and derive. Clearly the best thing to be when doing calculus is stoned. You deserve a prize for that one. I can't think of an appropriate one at the moment, though. Julia Don't make it too big, something infinitesimal will do just fine. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 20, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To be fair I don't always make the distinction when I comment on something, which surely doesn't help anyone else decide whether I think I'm right or I'm just blowing hot gas. ;) I wouldn't mind having to ask which is it from time to time if you don't mind being asked. If we agree that you sometimes use hyperbola and sometimes take strong serious positions, this seems like an obvious thing to do. If you feel the urge to ask, please do so. It might be interesting to see how many times I'm being serious versus just venting. As it happens I've seen some very absolutist statements coming from Gautam, regular use of adjectives such as absurd and nonsense, etc., and yet I don't see you calling him out on his language like you've chosen to target me. OK, a fair observation. You are right that I don't do it. I cannot remember when he used such strong language and I called him on it. The reason for this isn't automatic deference to his education. It's that when I look at that type of statement, I don't have the resources to mount a counter-arguement that meets my standards. All right -- but can you see why I might feel picked on? (Or is fortunate a better term...?) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) You completely missed the point of what I wrote. I'm not saying anything at all about people who accept occasional correction (BTW there are several others on this very list who refuse to admit to being in error, yet I don't see you hammering them over it). All I'm saying, and I said it very clearly, is that for the most part most of us behave, most of the time, as though our opinions are actually Absolute Truth. It is probably true that many people do that. I've been trained to not do thatand I've noticed that people who are skilled in scholarship tend not to that. I'll argue a point hard, but I always assign something like probabilities in my head to various positions that I have. I also note who has shown as deep or deeper understandings in an area than I have and nuance my language to reflect that. Getting a Phd in experimental physics, there are two things one learns that are relevant to this discussion. First, one learns to hone one's intuition. There isn't enough time in the world to plod through the problems, one has to have good opinions. Second, one learns to work with colleauges. Knowing how to work together to arrive at a solution that no one person could obtain is critical. Indeed, the department made sure that the average person was unable to do the homework by themselves to teach them that skill. The combination of this is that we are taught to both form opionions, even though we are not sure, and to develop mechanisms for weighing the certainty of each opinion so that the best consensus opinion may be obtained. Someone who always rates his certainty as 10 on a scale of 1-10 will have their 10s automatically downgraded (unless they are Feynmanesq. :-) ) When I was the scientist in an engineering group, these skills came in handy. I worked with field people who were not as educated as I was, but knew a lot that I didn't. I realized that they were sometimes right and I was wrong...often because they had key data that I didn't. Sometimes, I did state virtual certainty if that's the problem, then we have a Nobel Prize on our hands But I saved that for when I was willing to stake _a lot_ on being absolutely right. AFAIK, I never was in a position of being wrong. Other professions are the same way. I've read writings of good people in a number of fieldsthe same realization that one isn't all knowing is there. I think the more one studies a field deeply, the more one understands one's own ignorance. Clinging to an idea against all comers in counter-productive if one wants to _be_ right. New information or arguements should be able to change one's mind. My opinions have evolved from what I've seen, from reasoning I've read/heard, etc. I'm not sure I've ever seen you do that. The pleasant acknowledgment part, that is. Look at a recent conversation where Gautam corrected me on the Civil War. He's far better educated than me in that field, so I immediately started asking questions that showed that I knew No matter what kind of qualifiers you want to put on an opinion, ultimately you believe that opinion is true or else you wouldn't hold it. Ultimately, I believe that the opinion I hold has the best chance of being true, given what I've seen so far. But, since I've seen my opinions be wrong before (engineering physics is very good at providing such opportunities), I don't attach 99.9% probability to my opinion, and .1% to someone elses. That's it. That's what I'm saying. That's all I said. I don't know where you got the ancillary baggage. I didn't add it and I did not imply it. You read it in. At this point I feel intensely frustrated because you seem unwilling to accept very simple statements without trying to read other ideas into them. You seem to be quite adept at that, when you want to be -- very willing to overlook the clear, simple statements I make and instead substitute a contorted reformulation that is not only inaccurate, but that attempts to cast me in an unreasonable light. But, we look around, and see that people have different opinions. We know that some opinions are opposite opinions...so it is hard to imagine that they are both right as stated. One way of handling it is to assume that everyone else is always wrong and I am always right. But, I think that reasoning alone can show us (i.e. one could probabily do it mathamatically) that only the very most intelligent and observant among us could come close to being correct in believing this. So, I see you say that you are convinced that you have Absolute Truth. I use reason to see that is a valid statement that very few (perhaps just one person) could make. Thus, it looked to me as though you don't consider the rest of us at the same level
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:05 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) Yet, I weigh this consensus opinion much heavier than arguements that it is nonsense. One thing that I think lay people don't realize is that science doesn't work quite as it is pictured in textbooks or in popular science accounts. It is not simply turn the crank deductive reasoning. When things are uncertain, the right intuition can save a lot of time. It's true, once things are put together, the paper that comes out looks tight and deductive. But, the process requires having good opinions...and being very willing to modify opinions as needed. Knowing the golden mean between vacillation with each bit of data and going miles down a dark alley by sticking to one's guns is part of what is taught during that apprenticeship period. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) I'm not sure I've ever seen you do that. The pleasant acknowledgment part, that is. Look at a recent conversation where Gautam corrected me on the Civil War. He's far better educated than me in that field, so I immediately started asking questions that showed that I knew Knew what? (Figuratively biting my tongue to not make a smart-aleck remark -- that's someone else's job around here right?) (But I won't accept argument from authority any more than I would expect you to accept the same, so credentials alone won't necessarily mean much to me anyway.) Well, let me digress on arguing from authority. The origional problem with arguing from authority was clear in places like sci.physics where crackpots would quote Einstein out of context to support some wacko idea. It is not saying that the consensus opinion of people who study a field is not relevant to a situation. All opinions are not created equal. For example, the statement that human emmissions are now and will cause significant changes in the earth's temperature is not a fact. It is a consensus opinion. It is not a proven theory. There are still too many unknowns. Yet, I weigh this consensus opinion much heavier than arguements that it is nonsense. One thing that I think lay people Trying to figure out how to ask for the rest of that thought -- do I just ask, or do I get really cute with possible other meanings of what *is* there? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 10:34 PM Tuesday 4/19/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: For example, the statement that human emmissions are now and will cause significant changes in the earth's temperature is not a fact. It is a consensus opinion. It is not a proven theory. There are still too many unknowns. Whether or not bean consumption continues at current levels, frex . . . --Ronn! :) Bathroom humor is an American-Standard. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:34 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) I'm not sure I've ever seen you do that. The pleasant acknowledgment part, that is. Look at a recent conversation where Gautam corrected me on the Civil War. He's far better educated than me in that field, so I immediately started asking questions that showed that I knew Knew what? (Figuratively biting my tongue to not make a smart-aleck remark -- that's someone else's job around here right?) Knew that he was far better educated then me in that field. In my own defence, the first choice for this indefinate specific was the right one...so I didn't fix it when I saw it. :-) Yet, I weigh this consensus opinion much heavier than arguements that it is nonsense. One thing that I think lay people Trying to figure out how to ask for the rest of that thought -- do I just ask, or do I get really cute with possible other meanings of what *is* there? :) Yea, multi tasking with actual work makes my posts disconnected some times. But at least I was the first to copy this. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote: This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. I don't believe I ever disputed that. With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq unjustifiable, eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct in my views. I cannot see the validity in this thing expresses the speaker's state in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. I've used that language other times. As I stated before it has partly to do with how much I'm paying attention -- all evidence to the contrary aside I have other things to do than read/post here -- and partly with how certain I am of something. Also, I like the occasional shock value phrase. You might have been the one to insert the digression, but you weren't the one to drag it into a quagmire, FWIW. That was the work of someone else. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
Warren, On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote: With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq unjustifiable, eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct in my views. Is it pretense to leave open the possibility that I don't know something completely? I am tired of the implication that those who choose to be careful with their language are gutless or liars or both. I heard too much of that during the last election. I think it is the framing device that underlies the anti-political correctness statements. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
On Apr 18, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Dave Land wrote: Warren, On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote: With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq unjustifiable, eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct in my views. Is it pretense to leave open the possibility that I don't know something completely? Course not. However, it was *never my intention* to suggest I was anything less than sure of my opinions on Iraq. Two years ago my opinion was that the case for attack had not been made, but I did wonder about the unconventional weapons -- after all, inspectors *had* been told there were some places they couldn't look. There was reasonable doubt but not enough, I thought, to justify an invasion. Now, having seen the total lack of smoking gun style evidence, having seen how the US's status has fallen, having seen the outrageous expenses being foisted off on our citizens, having seen the death tolls on both sides, I've become certain. Iraq is not justifiable. That is my point of view on the subject. That is what I think and I will not tone down my language on the topic because some have a hard time dealing with others who feel sure of some of their opinions. I am tired of the implication that those who choose to be careful with their language are gutless or liars or both. I heard too much of that during the last election. I think it is the framing device that underlies the anti-political correctness statements. There's something to be said for undermining PC speech as well. PC statements can sometimes go too far, after all. You're missing *my* frustration, what *I* am tired of, which is the implication that I'm either arrogant or juvenile -- or both -- for possessing certitude in some areas. We ALL do it. We ALL carry opinions of which we're certain. I am not swamped with hubris or with teenage boy macho any more than anyone else is who's sure of anything. I just happen to hold a view that some don't like, and rather than address the view, they address the way it's expressed. That's pointless. It is not an argument. It's not even a rebuttal. I'm really put off of discussing this further. At this point I'm just rehashing what I've said before, which suggests to me that it's just not getting through and there's no point in hammering the horse any longer. If you (or others) want to have a discussion about whether Iraq itself was justifiable, that's fine; I'll be glad to join in and maybe even have my opinion swayed. But I'm not going to engage in discussion of particulars of language, certitude of opinions or implicit disclaimers any longer. The topic is done to death, and I am personally done with it. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature. For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad theology with better, if not good, theology. Oh. If that's all it is, I can refer you to two young guys in suits and white shirts who can help you do that in half as many steps . . . -- Ronn! :) Professional Smart-Aleck Mormon. Do Attempt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature. For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad theology with better, if not good, theology. Oh. If that's all it is, I can refer you to two young guys in suits and white shirts who can help you do that in half as many steps . . . -- Ronn! :) Professional Smart-Aleck Mormon. Do Attempt. I'm betting they'll show up on bicycles, be very polite, and decline offers of coffee Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 06:11 PM Saturday 4/16/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature. For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad theology with better, if not good, theology. Oh. If that's all it is, I can refer you to two young guys in suits and white shirts who can help you do that in half as many steps . . . -- Ronn! :) Professional Smart-Aleck Mormon. Do Attempt. I'm betting they'll show up on bicycles, be very polite, and decline offers of coffee In some areas like here, where one pair are responsible for a rather large geographical area, they do have access to a car. Otherwise, two out of three ain't bad . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Also, Hampden-Turner made the point that the most likely people to make such a shift in the US culture of the time were people whose background was one or other form of Christian puritanism. That is because people in other US cultures tended to be more forgiving. Of themselves and their faults, you mean, or of the errant sheep in their communities? (Or both?) Both, in that those with faults, such as drinking too much, often were see by others and by themselves as particular errant sheep. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
At 06:49 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, John DeBudge wrote: Not having been a reader of this list for long though (and having only started contributing in the last couple of days) Welcome! I could very well be missing some old arguments or personality conflicts. None that you (or any long-time members, either) want to hear about [again] :-D , but none that have any bearing on the current discussion. Leaving that aside I did not take Dave's comments to be as aggressive as some are taking them to be. It read a lot more like an honest attempt at allowing a more fruitful conversation to take place. John P.S. There are only two kinds of people in the world, people who put everyone into two kinds of people, and everyone else. There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Welcome! Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
At 08:04 AM Friday 4/15/2005, Erik Reuter wrote: * Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Welcome! Ronn's our welcome wagon for gmail trolls. Good job, Ronn. Thank you! -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 07:23 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 13, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:06 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style* Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss. How about, In my personal opinion, the Iraq war is unjustifiable. Here's why I believe that . . . YMMV, and I will respect you for your opinion even if it disagrees from mine, because I could be wrong.? :D rant The point of taking that implicitly, as opposed to explicating it with every sentence, is twofold, I think. 1. Of COURSE that's how opinions should be read and responded to. Duh. 2. Such disclaimers, in addition to wasting time and effort (as they're already understood by any being capable of reason), resemble the crap you see at the ends of emails that say things like This is a personal email and doesn't represent the views of BlaCorp... and five more grafs of utterly worthless, totally unnecessary legalese tacked on by lawyers with far too much time on their hands and nowhere near enough real issues to tackle. (Or, more succinctly, beings incapable of reason. ;) Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. IOW, pissing and whining about a lack of disclaimers and qualifiers added to every! goddamned! opinion! is so much like behaving as a corporate attorney might that it's really offensive to the intelligence of the readers. Isn't it? Or should we behave as though everyone we correspond with is too stupid to grasp that when we write an expression of how we see or think, we're really just stating an opinion? Do we really truly need to label opinions as such, or can we safely assume all of our readers are bright enough to know where the opinions are? Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about instead of attacking the way an idea is expressed, the idea itself gets to be the target of discussion for a while? It's nuts, I admit -- but it might just yield some interesting and meaningful results. Certainly it's not been tried around here much lately. Maybe then we'll see more light and less heat, huh? /rant Here's a very short summation. I'm not going to change the way I express my opinions (nor the way I express myself in general) to suit the sensibilities of others. Okay, how about the shorter version: I could be wrong, but I think the war in Iraq is unjustifiable because . . . Of course, since it seems that the whole point of 99+% of such discussions on any topic, whether OL or in RL, is for the speaker to prove that s/he is right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, as opposed to entertaining various possibly contrasting views and attempting to find the Truth or at least reach a consensus, admitting at the start that one might be wrong in one's opinion is counterproductive to the primary goal . . . :P -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 06:51 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: 2. Many times it seems to me that 12-step programs really substitute one addiction (to [substance]) for another (to the program). This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root, the source of the addiction. It simply replaces one behavior with another behavior, but offers no guarantees that backsliding won't happen. To eliminate addiction, one must fundamentally alter oneself and one's responses to the world, not just to [substance], and I'm uncertain that any 12-step program provides the necessary tools to accomplish that fundamental transformation. In the mid-80s, my mom was doing training to answer phones at a suicide prevention hotline. Part of the requirement for training was to attend an AA meeting (Narcotics Anonymous probably would have done, as well), for what reason I don't remember. Anyway, there was a limit for her tolerance for cigarette smoke, and so she wanted to go to a smokeless AA meeting. She could find only one during the week she was supposed to attend an AA meeting, while there were probably at least 3 meetings per day during that period in the area in which she was looking. So these folks were sober, but some of them were chain-smoking through the meetings, which might support your point. Unless things have changed recently, hospitals make one exception to the smoke-free policy for all patients, employees, and visitors: patients receiving in-patient mental-health care, because, as I have heard it explained, many of them smoke and they have enough on their plates undergoing whatever treatment they are undergoing. Others have suggested that one reason people with mental problems of one sort or another are more likely than the average person to drink or use illegal drugs (I'm not sure about smoking, but istm that it might also be included) is that they are actually self-medicating for their illness, sometimes with whatever is available to them (frex if they are unemployed and do not have insurance or easy access to healthcare). -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 09:44 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need to say that. But, I guess I am not as convinced by my superiority to others as you may be of yours. That type of statement takes a lot of chupaz in my book. By chupaz did you mean chutzpah? (My dictionary doesn't list anything between chunnel and church) Not even the shoreline? The worshippers must get their feet wet, then . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 14, 2005, at 6:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Okay, how about the shorter version: I could be wrong, but I think the war in Iraq is unjustifiable because . . . Of course, since it seems that the whole point of 99+% of such discussions on any topic, whether OL or in RL, is for the speaker to prove that s/he is right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, as opposed to entertaining various possibly contrasting views and attempting to find the Truth or at least reach a consensus, admitting at the start that one might be wrong in one's opinion is counterproductive to the primary goal . . . :P Yes. Thank you. That is and has been all along my point. The disclaiming verbiage takes up space, is a waste of time, and it belies the essence: That when we hold an opinion, we believe it to be *correct*, which is why we hold that opinion. I think the thing that some object to is that I frankly and openly begin from the assumption that I'm correct, verbally as well as in my head, rather than trying to pretend I'm willing to be dissuaded long enough to get my teeth into something and bulldog it relentlessly. The approach is rather blunt, but I think it's also the essence of the approach that *everyone else* takes in any discussion, regardless of how many I might be wrongs are inserted between arguments. Why write something I simply don't believe? If I thought a given point of view was wrong, I wouldn't have that point of view in the first place. So why behave as though I possess no certainty, or at least a reasonable approximation thereof, in areas where I feel it? If I'm wrong, I'll be shown it and I'll have to change my position. Pretty simple, I think, but rather than focus on a *topic* it seems some are more content to attack the message's *language*, which is pointless. That said, there always *is* the chance that my opinion is based in error (I'm not sure it's meaningful to call an opinion wrong) and can be refined/corrected/improved, but again, why add the disclaimers? They take up space, I think they're implicitly understood anyway, and in my view they weaken the impact of a statement. Profoundly. This is a perfect case. No one responded with any heat to In my opinion, the Bush strategy in dealing with Iraq was at least partly mistaken, but I toss in a single adjective -- unjustifiable -- and the collective bowel movements are enormous. (BTW no one's yet really taken up the actual gauntlet and attempted to overturn my assessment, which I find interesting. There's just been dissembling over the word itself, which as I said before is pointless.) Now I might be inclined to insert qualifiers in places were I feel uncertain, at least if I'm paying attention and/or am not aiming to use evocative language, but I don't feel a need to do so if I'm reasonably sure of my point of view. Lukewarm language yields lukewarm discussions, and makes it pretty difficult to feel inspired to any action. It also makes for some fairly dull debates. I'd rather see a little fire in the dialogue than letter after letter of mutually-stroking milquetoast. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the topic of disclaimers: Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. I started this drift. I never intended that anyone lard their statements of opinion with disclaimers. This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. I cannot see the validity in this thing expresses the speaker's state in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
At 05:58 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the topic of disclaimers: Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. I started this drift. I never intended that anyone lard their statements of opinion with disclaimers. This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. I cannot see the validity in this thing expresses the speaker's state in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. Agreed. One approach invites discussion which, with luck, may lead to discovery of the truth about the subject or to building a consensus of opinion, or at least leave the participants agreeing to disagree. The other approach is an invitation to an argument or a flamewar . . . I personally prefer the first type of discussion. YMMV. Though There Are Days When I Am In The Mood To Throw Gasoline On The Fire Maru -- Ronn! :) IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humo(u)r or irrational religious beliefs (including atheism). • If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. • Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. • No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although that ugly little yapping dog next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. • Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. • If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
Dave, I also understand what you are saying and I would like to add my agreement to it as well. I can relate to the comments that Warren was making with respect to ones beliefs always being right from ones own point of view. I myself have gotten into many discussions with friends about that very subject. Most people either think the point is trivially true, or completely misunderstand it. So I just want to make it clear that I also agree with those comments. Even though I happen to feel that at any given time my current thoughts on a subject are right I still am able to recognize that many of my currently correct points of view differed in the past. When presented with new information I am thus rather confident that such views might stand the chance of changing in the future. While I feel that some views which have not changed in a long time might never change, I still must acknowledge the possibility (even if I only acknowledge it internally). However the fact that my right ideas might change in the future has nothing at all to do with the idea that someone else might (and very well dose) hold a differing view point on the subject. I might feel that they are wrong, but I still should be able to acknowledge without rancor that they do in fact equally believe in their right thoughts. Their thoughts clearly are based on different data than my own, or they interpret the same data differently than I do. Thus the point of any conversation with someone who holds a vastly differing idea than my own would be for me to learn any new data that they had, explain new data to them, or try to understand why our interpretations of common data differ. If we are able to agree on all of the major data points associated with a given subject, and also come to have similar interpretations of this data, then our ideas should largely be in sync. If you start out by dismissing the very possibility of someone else having valid data or valid interpretations this type of mutual exchange will not happen. In affect you are telling the other person that everything they know about the subject is wrong, or they are interpreting everything wrong, or both. You are claiming that there is nothing they can give to you, and instead they must, if they want to continue the conversation, start only listening to, and agreeing with your data and interpretations. It might not be your intention, but that is how it comes across. Please note the difference here between having to always admit that you are only expressing your own opinions vs trying to leave open the possibility that the other person might be right, even if you do not understand why yet. This subject is important to me because I am often (always?) a strong reductionist in any kind of argument. I always reduce complex things to one or two discrete elements and then build up from there (conversations are the transmission of data and interpretations of data...;). I am well aware however that the very act of a reduction has the chance of outright rejecting a large part of someone else's basis for their beliefs. I try to be away of this, but I do not always catch it. As a result I do my best to being open to correction if I do such a thing. Not having been a reader of this list for long though (and having only started contributing in the last couple of days) I could very well be missing some old arguments or personality conflicts. Leaving that aside I did not take Dave's comments to be as aggressive as some are taking them to be. It read a lot more like an honest attempt at allowing a more fruitful conversation to take place. John P.S. There are only two kinds of people in the world, people who put everyone into two kinds of people, and everyone else. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On 5 Apr 2005, at 2:59 pm, Nick Arnett wrote: On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:48:50 +0100, William T Goodall wrote But the fundamentalists are the fastest growing Christian sects. I see this as part of a trend that goes far beyond Christianity and far beyond religion. Fundamentalism of all sorts is on the rise, which I think is a typical outcome of social and economic injustice. And the Bible has a great deal to say about that. Jim Wallis makes a nice observation that the answer to bad theology isn't secularism, it's good theology. I'd imagine you think there's no such thing.. .? I think there is room for a twelve-step theology that weans people off religion and helps them fend off its malign and pernicious influence thereafter. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:59:15 +0100, William T Goodall wrote I think there is room for a twelve-step theology that weans people off religion and helps them fend off its malign and pernicious influence thereafter. That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature. For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad theology with better, if not good, theology. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 12, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] But, the words actually do mean different things. Let me make two statements I consider true about Iraq and one that I consider false. true The actions of Hussein against his own people were unjustifiable George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was mistaken end true false Invading Iraq was an unjustifyable action end false OK, but they're both sets of opinions, right? But, they are very different opinionsone claims that the people one is differing with are ignorant, unable or unwilling to use reason, or of ill will; while the other is a statement about one's own best analysis. I don't see how one makes such a claim while the other one does not. Unless you're reading that subtext into the declarations, neither set of statements says anything at all about the faculties of possible debate opponents. I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style* Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss. My entire point is that it's unnecessary to preface opinions with flags that say opinion. But, the origional point, was that it would be very useful to use a nuanced expression of your opinion. Unless of course, you actually feel that only those folks that agree with you on all counts are reasonable and the rest of us are all idiots. Look at this another way. Each person who holds a given opinion behaves, most of the time, as though that opinion is not simply correct, but Absolute Truth. You can add all the feel-good intellectual padding you want to a given statement of position, including in my view... and as I see it... and so on, but at the end of the day, what matters is *not* the qualifiers; what matters is the seed: ... the Iraq war cannot be justified. (Or whatever.) If you think you or anyone else behaves in a significantly different fashion, I'd suggest you're being more than a little self-deluding. We *must* assume that our opinions are valid. If we don't, we're paralyzed by self-doubt, incapable of action, and ultimately hold no concrete views of any kind whatsoever on any subject. More accurately, we *convince ourselves* that we hold no concrete views. In fact our actions state otherwise, loudly and clearly, all the time. Finally, I have difficulty with the idea of just three states: Yes, No, and Uncertain. There is a great deal of difference between a 0.1% chance and a 99.9% chance, although both are uncertain. True. Not sure how that's part of my objection to feeling a need to label every opinion as such, though. Because you write as though my statement that you just agreed with were not true. I've seen posts that make over the top claims that indicate that those that differ with you are all idiots. Let me ask you something, Dan. Are you going to throw that in my face every time we have a discussion and end up disagreeing on a point? Because if you are I'll just start filtering you rather than deal with the callbacks. Okay? I'm suggesting that you find a different pile of grist for your disagreement mill if you want to continue having discussions with me on any subject. I'm getting a little tired of your sticking to something *you* don't like and behaving as though that's a consistent position from me. You are reacting to the homunculus you've created of me in your head, and I'm asking you to stop it. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 13, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:59:15 +0100, William T Goodall wrote I think there is room for a twelve-step theology that weans people off religion and helps them fend off its malign and pernicious influence thereafter. That would be, um, difficult, since 12-step programs are spiritual in nature. Often, yeah. Higher Power and all that. IIRC the AA programs end with The Lord's Prayer too. For many, I suspect, a big part of such a program is the replacement of bad theology with better, if not good, theology. Or, well, bad addiction with a more benevolent one, at least theoretically. The trouble I have with 12-step programs is twofold. (Minette's Disclaimer: What follows is OPINION. Though I might make declarations that read as absolute facts, it is to be understood that they are nothing but my own thoughts on the subject and may or may not be valid from anyone else's perspective.) 1. The Admit you are powerless clause, particularly in conjunction with the Higher Power idea. I never particularly cared for that, because -- and it wasn't until years later that I got the experience necessary to articulate this objection fully -- addiction to *any* substance, even the physically addictive ones, is at least partly a decision or choice, one made by the individual dealing with the addiction. Thing is that the booze, nicotine, cocaine or whatever does *not* force itself upon you. It's not volitional, it's not an Act of God (?) nor is it a force of nature. Ultimately, then, one's reaction -- one's addiction -- to such substances must be rooted in *oneself*. Therefore in saying that you're powerless over [substance], you're basically saying that you don't take responsibility for your actions. I have a serious ethical objection to that assessment. As for the Higher Power doctrine. Well, I'm an atheist. ;) But looked at from the perspective of the powerless objection, I think you can maybe see an extension. That is, just as [substance] really has no power over you -- it's power you grant it, and power you can choose to retract any time -- the Higher Power, being another internal construct, is functionally identical to [substance]. So in essence one aspect of yourself (Higher Power) is being used to control your response to another aspect of yourself (reaction to [substance]). It's more efficient, I think, to eliminate both middle states and simply say I'm not going to react to [substance] in the way I used to; I have control, I take responsibility, and the Higher Power can get stuffed. ;) 2. Many times it seems to me that 12-step programs really substitute one addiction (to [substance]) for another (to the program). This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root, the source of the addiction. It simply replaces one behavior with another behavior, but offers no guarantees that backsliding won't happen. To eliminate addiction, one must fundamentally alter oneself and one's responses to the world, not just to [substance], and I'm uncertain that any 12-step program provides the necessary tools to accomplish that fundamental transformation. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:29:04 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote Often, yeah. Higher Power and all that. IIRC the AA programs end with The Lord's Prayer too. Typically, but there are many meetings that use the Serenity Prayer to accomodate people who are uncomfortable with one particular religion's prayer. Therefore in saying that you're powerless over [substance], you're basically saying that you don't take responsibility for your actions. I have a serious ethical objection to that assessment. If that's what it meant, then your objection would be reasonable. Like all the steps, it is in the past tense -- we *were* powerless. Powerlessness isn't the same as helplessness; what such programs teach is that there is help available and to look outside ourselves, beyond the popular myth of self- discipline (which in my experience condemns rather than frees). It's a whole lot of letting go. Not that I'm an expert. As for the Higher Power doctrine. Well, I'm an atheist. ;) But looked at from the perspective of the powerless objection, I think you can maybe see an extension. I've heard a number of people say that their sponsors urged them to write a job description for their higher power, then work with that. One guy I know chose for his first higher power a god to whom he could say F--- off any time he wanted. That worked well for him, then he moved to a far more entertaining (but less useful, he said) higher power -- John Cleese, as in I fart in your general direction. He's moved on further since then, but still reverts to Cleese occasionally, he says. So in essence one aspect of yourself (Higher Power) is being used to control your response to another aspect of yourself (reaction to [substance]). It's more efficient, I think, to eliminate both middle states and simply say I'm not going to react to [substance] in the way I used to; I have control, I take responsibility, and the Higher Power can get stuffed. But a higher power isn't an aspect of oneself, as far as I'm concerned. Even if it is the 12-step group itself, part of the point is to get outside oneself, to stop being wrapped up on one's own stuff. Not that I'm an expert. And Get stuffed isn't far from F--- off. This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root, the source of the addiction. It simply replaces one behavior with another behavior, but offers no guarantees that backsliding won't happen. There are no guarantees, especially that one -- hence the saying, One day at a time. To eliminate addiction, one must fundamentally alter oneself and one's responses to the world, not just to [substance], and I'm uncertain that any 12-step program provides the necessary tools to accomplish that fundamental transformation. I'm quite sure that some do. I know people intimately who are far more kind, loving and gentle as a result of working the steps. But they don't address addiction per se, they attack the acting out that goes with being an addict, whether the addiction is a substance or a behavior. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 12:06 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style* Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss. How about, In my personal opinion, the Iraq war is unjustifiable. Here's why I believe that . . . YMMV, and I will respect you for your opinion even if it disagrees from mine, because I could be wrong.? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Warren Ockrassa wrote: 2. Many times it seems to me that 12-step programs really substitute one addiction (to [substance]) for another (to the program). This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root, the source of the addiction. It simply replaces one behavior with another behavior, but offers no guarantees that backsliding won't happen. To eliminate addiction, one must fundamentally alter oneself and one's responses to the world, not just to [substance], and I'm uncertain that any 12-step program provides the necessary tools to accomplish that fundamental transformation. In the mid-80s, my mom was doing training to answer phones at a suicide prevention hotline. Part of the requirement for training was to attend an AA meeting (Narcotics Anonymous probably would have done, as well), for what reason I don't remember. Anyway, there was a limit for her tolerance for cigarette smoke, and so she wanted to go to a smokeless AA meeting. She could find only one during the week she was supposed to attend an AA meeting, while there were probably at least 3 meetings per day during that period in the area in which she was looking. So these folks were sober, but some of them were chain-smoking through the meetings, which might support your point. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
If the Iraqi government had waited until it had nuclear weapons, Iraq might well have become the first country since 1945 to annex all of another country successfully (country as recognized by the UN as a 1648 `Treaty of Westfalia' type of country, not as a `protocol state' such as South Vietnam) Just to nit-pick (as is list tradition), I think the people of Irian Jaya would disagree... I'm not sure how you'd consider the status of Tibet either - aren't they effectively annexed? To nit-pick a bit more: Irian Jaya (the western half of New Guinea is what I think you mean -- the names have changed since I first learned them) was *not* an independent country; it was a Dutch colony, separate from Java. It should have been made independent, but shamefully was not. As far as I know, Tibet was never a member of the UN. (That is why I specified that.) At various times over the past few centuries, the Tibetan government (a conservative theocracy, I think) paid tribute or sent gifts to Chinese emperors. When a Chinese government was weak, it did not. China annexed Tibet after a new government, the communists, won a civil war, took power on the mainland, and suppressed most provincial independence. In traditional Chinese terms, the new government had captured `the mandate of Heaven'. The annexation occurred before China got nuclear weapons, but after the Soviet Union tested them, while China and the Soviets were still allied. My sense is that the US was more concerned with the contemporary fighting in Korea and with fears that that fighting was a feint to take attention away from another war in Europe, the French were concerned with Indo-China, and the British concerned with Kenya and Malaya. None of the Western powers had Tibet as a colony, unlike Indo-China, Kenya and Malaya at that time; and Tibet did not have oil or any other reason to be considered of strategic significance. I am told that Mao invested a great deal inefficently in northern and eastern Tibet because the region was a long distance away from any possible attacker. This was before long range missiles; attacking soldiers would have had to march across rough territory, ford numerous rivers without bridges, etc. I have seen Han Chinese racism against Tibetans, mostly uncommented on by Americans. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 13, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:06 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style* Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss. How about, In my personal opinion, the Iraq war is unjustifiable. Here's why I believe that . . . YMMV, and I will respect you for your opinion even if it disagrees from mine, because I could be wrong.? :D rant The point of taking that implicitly, as opposed to explicating it with every sentence, is twofold, I think. 1. Of COURSE that's how opinions should be read and responded to. Duh. 2. Such disclaimers, in addition to wasting time and effort (as they're already understood by any being capable of reason), resemble the crap you see at the ends of emails that say things like This is a personal email and doesn't represent the views of BlaCorp... and five more grafs of utterly worthless, totally unnecessary legalese tacked on by lawyers with far too much time on their hands and nowhere near enough real issues to tackle. (Or, more succinctly, beings incapable of reason. ;) Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. IOW, pissing and whining about a lack of disclaimers and qualifiers added to every! goddamned! opinion! is so much like behaving as a corporate attorney might that it's really offensive to the intelligence of the readers. Isn't it? Or should we behave as though everyone we correspond with is too stupid to grasp that when we write an expression of how we see or think, we're really just stating an opinion? Do we really truly need to label opinions as such, or can we safely assume all of our readers are bright enough to know where the opinions are? Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about instead of attacking the way an idea is expressed, the idea itself gets to be the target of discussion for a while? It's nuts, I admit -- but it might just yield some interesting and meaningful results. Certainly it's not been tried around here much lately. Maybe then we'll see more light and less heat, huh? /rant Here's a very short summation. I'm not going to change the way I express my opinions (nor the way I express myself in general) to suit the sensibilities of others. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
The trouble I have with 12-step programs is twofold. ... 1. The Admit you are powerless clause, particularly in conjunction with the Higher Power idea. 30 or 40 years ago, Charles Hampden-Turner (in, I think, The Delancy Street Asylum) said, if I remember rightly, that many people with addictions think of themselves as being able to overcome the addiction, but don't bother. Only after they have made a major psychological shift do they bother. One way to make such a psychological shift is to give up and recreate. An anthropologist would call it a rebirth ritual. Also, Hampden-Turner made the point that the most likely people to make such a shift in the US culture of the time were people whose background was one or other form of Christian puritanism. That is because people in other US cultures tended to be more forgiving. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:06 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) But, they are very different opinionsone claims that the people one is differing with are ignorant, unable or unwilling to use reason, or of ill will; while the other is a statement about one's own best analysis. I don't see how one makes such a claim while the other one does not. Unless you're reading that subtext into the declarations, neither set of statements says anything at all about the faculties of possible debate opponents. Let me give a parallel example. This problem is unsolveable vs I cannot solve this problem. The first statement is a general statement concerning the nature of the problem. By saying this, one is claiming than anyone who states that they have solved this particular problem is making a false statement. Depending on the nature of the problem, you might be calling those that claim to have solved it ignorant, crackpots, etc. Let me give two examples of this. There is no algorithmic solution to the universal halting problem. Anyone who claims that they found one are wrong. There is no physical solution to the problem of turning heat energy directly into mechanical energy without also transfering a minimum amount of heat to a colder body. Anyone who claims to have invented such a machine is either a crackpot or working in an area of totally new physics. If they have a classical machine that is supposed to do it, they are a crackpot. By saying something is indefensabile one is saying that it is impossible that such a defence is impossible. Those who claim they have a defence are not dealing with reality for some reason or another. They may be ignorant, they may be arguing in bad faith, they may be in denial, they may not use reason properly. Or, they just might be idiots. I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style* Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss. No, there isn't. But, that particular statement puts a tremendous burdon of proof on the affirmative. They would have to show that it was impossible to construct a reasonable case for the war...not just show that the negative case is far stronger. My entire point is that it's unnecessary to preface opinions with flags that say opinion. But, the origional point, was that it would be very useful to use a nuanced expression of your opinion. Unless of course, you actually feel that only those folks that agree with you on all counts are reasonable and the rest of us are all idiots. Look at this another way. Each person who holds a given opinion behaves, most of the time, as though that opinion is not simply correct, but Absolute Truth. Well, some people do that, but I always lower my respect a notch for folks who will not accept that they are sometimes wrongunless they are Feynman and the subject is physics. Lord knows I argue tooth and nail. But, I work at precision in my arguementsparticularly written arguements. I usually leave outs for reasonable people to disagree. It allows for a graceful retreat when necessary. Saying I don't see the justification for something allows someone to give the justification and then for me to pleasantly acknowledge it. I'm particularly careful when I argue with someone who's a scholar or an expert in a field we are debating. You can add all the feel-good intellectual padding you want to a given statement of position, including in my view... and as I see it... and so on, but at the end of the day, what matters is *not* the qualifiers; what matters is the seed: ... the Iraq war cannot be justified. (Or whatever.) So, you are saying that different sets of words do not carry different sets of information? Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need to say that. But, I guess I am not as convinced by my superiority to others as you may be of yours. That type of statement takes a lot of chupaz in my book. If you think you or anyone else behaves in a significantly different fashion, I'd suggest you're being more than a little self-deluding. We *must* assume that our opinions are valid. Valid is different from Absolute Truth. All one has to do is assume that there are some subjects upon which reasonable, moral people can differ; some subjects upon which they do not; and use different language to describe each so others know what you mean. You tend to use language that connotes the latter when discussing views that differ from you. If we don't, we're paralyzed by self-doubt, incapable of action, and ultimately
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Dan Minette wrote: Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need to say that. But, I guess I am not as convinced by my superiority to others as you may be of yours. That type of statement takes a lot of chupaz in my book. By chupaz did you mean chutzpah? (My dictionary doesn't list anything between chunnel and church) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:44 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) Dan Minette wrote: Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need to say that. But, I guess I am not as convinced by my superiority to others as you may be of yours. That type of statement takes a lot of chupaz in my book. By chupaz did you mean chutzpah? (My dictionary doesn't list anything between chunnel and church) Yes, I did. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 9:44 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) Dan Minette wrote: Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need to say that. But, I guess I am not as convinced by my superiority to others as you may be of yours. That type of statement takes a lot of chupaz in my book. By chupaz did you mean chutzpah? (My dictionary doesn't list anything between chunnel and church) Yes, I did. Thank you for the clarification. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 13, 2005, at 7:08 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] But, they are very different opinionsone claims that the people one is differing with are ignorant, unable or unwilling to use reason, or of ill will; while the other is a statement about one's own best analysis. I don't see how one makes such a claim while the other one does not. Unless you're reading that subtext into the declarations, neither set of statements says anything at all about the faculties of possible debate opponents. Let me give a parallel example. This problem is unsolveable vs I cannot solve this problem. The first statement is a general statement concerning the nature of the problem. By saying this, one is claiming than anyone who states that they have solved this particular problem is making a false statement. Depending on the nature of the problem, you might be calling those that claim to have solved it ignorant, crackpots, etc. I see where you're coming from, but it's not exactly a parallel example, is it? If you're talking about a problem, what I think of is engineering, arithmetic, physics and so on -- not a philosophical conundrum or something subject to opinion. By saying something is indefensabile one is saying that it is impossible that such a defence is impossible. Those who claim they have a defence are not dealing with reality for some reason or another. They may be ignorant, they may be arguing in bad faith, they may be in denial, they may not use reason properly. Or, they just might be idiots. Or it might be a shortcut. Maybe one could track page after page of reasoning and carefully build an argument that renders a given position, ultimately, indefensible. Or you might just concede that we really do behave as though we're right, most of the time. I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style* Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss. No, there isn't. But, that particular statement puts a tremendous burdon of proof on the affirmative. They would have to show that it was impossible to construct a reasonable case for the war...not just show that the negative case is far stronger. What's wrong with that? If I believe that the Iraq war is indefensible, please explain to me why the hell I should say otherwise. Why shouldn't I put the burden of proof on the affirmative? If I'm not convinced -- as I clearly am not -- that Iraq was a good idea, if I am pretty sure -- as I clearly am -- that attacking it was unconscionable, I'd like you to explain to me why you think it's reasonable for me to behave with anything other than the certitude I feel I have. Look at this another way. Each person who holds a given opinion behaves, most of the time, as though that opinion is not simply correct, but Absolute Truth. Well, some people do that, but I always lower my respect a notch for folks who will not accept that they are sometimes wrongunless they are Feynman and the subject is physics. You completely missed the point of what I wrote. I'm not saying anything at all about people who accept occasional correction (BTW there are several others on this very list who refuse to admit to being in error, yet I don't see you hammering them over it). All I'm saying, and I said it very clearly, is that for the most part most of us behave, most of the time, as though our opinions are actually Absolute Truth. Saying I don't see the justification for something allows someone to give the justification and then for me to pleasantly acknowledge it. I'm not sure I've ever seen you do that. The pleasant acknowledgment part, that is. You can add all the feel-good intellectual padding you want to a given statement of position, including in my view... and as I see it... and so on, but at the end of the day, what matters is *not* the qualifiers; what matters is the seed: ... the Iraq war cannot be justified. (Or whatever.) So, you are saying that different sets of words do not carry different sets of information? No. I am saying precisely what I said. You must have read it, so I'm not sure why it's unclear. Let me restate it. No matter what kind of qualifiers you want to put on an opinion, ultimately you believe that opinion is true or else you wouldn't hold it. That's it. That's what I'm saying. That's all I said. I don't know where you got the ancillary baggage. I didn't add it and I did not imply it. You read it in. At this point I feel intensely frustrated because you seem unwilling to accept very simple statements without trying to read other ideas into them. You seem to be quite adept at that, when you want to be -- very willing to overlook the clear, simple statements I make and instead substitute a contorted reformulation that is not only inaccurate, but that attempts to cast me in an unreasonable light. This says a lot about whom you think you're talking
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 13, 2005, at 4:51 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: 2. Many times it seems to me that 12-step programs really substitute one addiction (to [substance]) for another (to the program). This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root, the source of the addiction. It simply replaces one behavior with another behavior, but offers no guarantees that backsliding won't happen. To eliminate addiction, one must fundamentally alter oneself and one's responses to the world, not just to [substance], and I'm uncertain that any 12-step program provides the necessary tools to accomplish that fundamental transformation. In the mid-80s, my mom was doing training to answer phones at a suicide prevention hotline. Part of the requirement for training was to attend an AA meeting (Narcotics Anonymous probably would have done, as well), for what reason I don't remember. Heh, that's interesting they'd require it. Maybe it was so the phone folks would have some understanding and/or context when talking to people with problems? Or maybe the feeling was that some firsthand experience of a 12-step program would help them know what to recommend and when... Anyway, there was a limit for her tolerance for cigarette smoke, and so she wanted to go to a smokeless AA meeting. She could find only one during the week she was supposed to attend an AA meeting, while there were probably at least 3 meetings per day during that period in the area in which she was looking. Right, that's another thing I've seen a lot of. Much, *much* smoking. So these folks were sober, but some of them were chain-smoking through the meetings, which might support your point. Maybe. It really is individual, it seems -- I mean I can't well deny that 12-step programs have helped millions of people over the years get their feet back. So obviously something they're doing is working, and it can be argued that it's working very well. Maybe it's just certain personality traits that don't mesh with the 12-step model. I don't know if anyone's done any in-depth studies on the subject; it might be interesting to see results and/or data, if there are any. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 13, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Robert J. Chassell wrote: The trouble I have with 12-step programs is twofold. ... 1. The Admit you are powerless clause, particularly in conjunction with the Higher Power idea. 30 or 40 years ago, Charles Hampden-Turner (in, I think, The Delancy Street Asylum) said, if I remember rightly, that many people with addictions think of themselves as being able to overcome the addiction, but don't bother. !! That's really interesting. *Really* interesting. Only after they have made a major psychological shift do they bother. One way to make such a psychological shift is to give up and recreate. An anthropologist would call it a rebirth ritual. Or something like a charismatic case of being saved and getting baptized? Also, Hampden-Turner made the point that the most likely people to make such a shift in the US culture of the time were people whose background was one or other form of Christian puritanism. That is because people in other US cultures tended to be more forgiving. Of themselves and their faults, you mean, or of the errant sheep in their communities? (Or both?) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On the contrary, Saddam Hussein's government was actively working on them. That is why some people were worried in 2002 -- they really did not think that Saddam Hussein was lying when he claimed to be continuing the effort. And we haven't found evidence of this, two years after invading, because...? Either they did not exist or the US failed to secure them early on and others took them. The point is that in 2002 and early 2003 some people worried that Saddam Hussein was not lying. The UN had found that he had used dangerous weapons before and that he had spent fortunes developing others. If the Iraqi government had waited until it had nuclear weapons, Iraq might well have become the first country since 1945 to annex all of another country successfully (country as recognized by the UN as a 1648 `Treaty of Westfalia' type of country, not as a `protocol state' such as South Vietnam) The Bush administration now says Saddam Hussein was lying in 2002. Perhaps they are right. I certainly hope so. But as Blix said in his reports, the UN inspectors could not give assurances that Saddam Hussein was not lying. Indeed, Blix's first report said that the then Iraqi government was hindering inspections. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Christian Justification for War (was Re: The Other Christianity, was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
JDG wrote ... let's consider a reasonable definition of the US's friends as being those countries with which the US has a formal Alliance ... Of the 32 or so of these ... That fails to provide much legitimacy. It is the same argument as that in favor of the United Nations. That is because alliances are with countries. In terms of persuasion (not law), such an argument is like having a legislative body that depends on history, that is to say on which state or country got in, such as the US Senate or the UN General Assembly. Such an institution only provides a little legitimacy. Legislative houses based on population provide more legitimacy. However, they do not necessarily provide a way to reflect changes in power that comes from changes in per capta riches rather than changes in population. (That is why I have suggested that a third type of legislative body.) In this particular case, people who have attacked the notion that `many supported US action' point out that the population of most of those countries is small, and that the countries are dependent on the US. So the persuasion fails. The unstated argument is that countries that `count' for persuasion or for providing legitimacy are rich as well as having sizeable populations, such as France and Germany. In the current United Nations General Assembly, France and Latvia both have one vote. (The UN is a two chamber organization; in the upper chamber, the victorious countries with munitioning ability in WWII, have a veto -- that is history-based power. Some other countries, without a veto, get to join them.) If UN General Assembly votes were based on population, France would receive less than 1% of the total votes, the US about 5%, and China about 20%. If the votes were based on the current apportionment for UN dues, the US would receive 23% of the total, France less than 4% and China less than 3%. (Actually, in this sort of power distribution, I think that votes should be based on what is apportioned and *paid*, just as in a population-based legislature, votes should be based on the living, not on the dead.) -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 9, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, why though? Isn't everything we state that is less than 100% provable an opinion? Isn't it valid to read in the phrase In my opinion... before any declaration, at least of values or judgments? Obviously that wouldn't work for things like math ... [In my opinion] 2 + 2 = 4. But isn't it self-apparent that when I say the Iraq war is unjustifiable, I am issuing my own opinion on the topic? But, the words actually do mean different things. Let me make two statements I consider true about Iraq and one that I consider false. true The actions of Hussein against his own people were unjustifiable George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was mistaken end true false Invading Iraq was an unjustifyable action end false OK, but they're both sets of opinions, right? Whether or not the statements read differently, they are still expressions of personal ideas, not hard facts. My entire point is that it's unnecessary to preface opinions with flags that say opinion. Finally, I have difficulty with the idea of just three states: Yes, No, and Uncertain. There is a great deal of difference between a 0.1% chance and a 99.9% chance, although both are uncertain. True. Not sure how that's part of my objection to feeling a need to label every opinion as such, though. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 9, 2005, at 2:20 PM, JDG wrote: At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote It means that there wasn't a third option between going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was even vaguely plausible. You could choose one or the other. Really? No other options? Then what of all those that opposed the war, including almost every major religious organization across the globe? Was the Pope trying to stop democracy in Iraq? The World Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, the Middle East Council of Churches, the churches of Norway, Finland and Denmark, Greece, the United Methodist Church, my own Lutheran church and on and on and on -- were they all trying to stop democracy in Iraq when they opposed this war and proposed other options. I think that the answer to that is unequivocally yes, in effect. The policies advocated by the above would have resulted in Iraq's most recent democratic elections not happening. 1. There's no way you can prove that. 2. The above is dangerously close to ends justify means reasoning. You're fond of suggesting that those who opposed attaching a sovereign nation that had done nothing militarily against the US are also opposed to stopping, say, genocide in Rwanda (which we also didn't do, BTW) -- you've done a reductio ad absurdum. But your reasoning can be handled in the same fashion. If you believe it's acceptable to attack a nation because you don't like its leaders, then it's abundantly clear that no nation is secure from your bellicose policies, and that eventually every nation will be under attack from the US. Total War. That's the policy *you* are supporting, to take the same step into absurdity you have taken. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:50 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) On Apr 9, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, why though? Isn't everything we state that is less than 100% provable an opinion? Isn't it valid to read in the phrase In my opinion... before any declaration, at least of values or judgments? Obviously that wouldn't work for things like math ... [In my opinion] 2 + 2 = 4. But isn't it self-apparent that when I say the Iraq war is unjustifiable, I am issuing my own opinion on the topic? But, the words actually do mean different things. Let me make two statements I consider true about Iraq and one that I consider false. true The actions of Hussein against his own people were unjustifiable George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was mistaken end true false Invading Iraq was an unjustifyable action end false OK, but they're both sets of opinions, right? But, they are very different opinionsone claims that the people one is differing with are ignorant, unable or unwilling to use reason, or of ill will; while the other is a statement about one's own best analysis. You tend to use words that indicate the former. If one says I couldn't justify it, it allows the possibility that those folks who do justify it are reasonable people who happen to be mistaken on this particular point. Whether or not the statements read differently, they are still expressions of personal ideas, not hard facts. As I pointed out below, having two boxes isn't very helpful. The idea that the sun will come up in the East tomorrow morning is not a hard fact today. Things that happened in the past are no longer hard facts because they cannot be experimentally tested today. My entire point is that it's unnecessary to preface opinions with flags that say opinion. But, the origional point, was that it would be very useful to use a nuanced expression of your opinion. Unless of course, you actually feel that only those folks that agree with you on all counts are reasonable and the rest of us are all idiots. Finally, I have difficulty with the idea of just three states: Yes, No, and Uncertain. There is a great deal of difference between a 0.1% chance and a 99.9% chance, although both are uncertain. True. Not sure how that's part of my objection to feeling a need to label every opinion as such, though. Because you write as though my statement that you just agreed with were not true. I've seen posts that make over the top claims that indicate that those that differ with you are all idiots. Then, the verisimilitude of the claims are challenged in well reasoned and supported posts. You then point out that they didn't prove you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, and seem to claim that as a victory. I see this type of pattern as contributing more heat than light to a subject. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Robert J. Chassell wrote: If the Iraqi government had waited until it had nuclear weapons, Iraq might well have become the first country since 1945 to annex all of another country successfully (country as recognized by the UN as a 1648 `Treaty of Westfalia' type of country, not as a `protocol state' such as South Vietnam) Just to nit-pick (as is list tradition), I think the people of Irian Jaya would disagree... I'm not sure how you'd consider the status of Tibet either - aren't they effectively annexed? These only confirm your point - no-one was going to liberate Irian Jaya because the US had authorised the invasion and they were a nuclear power, and no-one liberated Tibet because China was a nuclear power... Cheers Russell C. --- This email (including any attachments) is confidential and copyright. The School makes no warranty about the content of this email. Unless expressly stated, this email does not bind the School and does not necessarily constitute the opinion of the School. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender. --- GWAVAsig ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 9, 2005, at 8:06 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sure, this is readily apparent to *us*, but back then any pregnancy in concert with an intact hymen would be considered miraculous. How much knowledge of a hymen was there ca. 2K years ago, though? I mean, did anyone in Galilee even know they existed? Uh..I would think that knowledge was universal. What? You're suggesting that the concept of a hymen -- as well as a gynecologically safe way of examining whether a hymen was intact -- was known to the witch doctors of 2,000 years ago? If so, do you have some documentary evidence to support the suggestion? People back then knew how to tell if a woman was a virgin and would test the question if there was any question before a marriage. You mean the cask of wine test? If a non-virgin sits over an open cask of wine, the perfume of the wine passes through her body. The wine and can be smelled on her breath by a rabbi. On the other hand, if a virgin sits over an open cast of wine, the perfume of the wine does not pass through her body, and, naturally, a rabbi cannot smell it. Here is an account of the conversation between the bride, the groom, and the rabbi that describes the technique. http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_6.html The only other test mentioned for virginity (apart from personal affidavits) was the in/famous bloody sheet. If it wasn't, she wasn't either, basically. But that requires a complaint to be issued -- that is, the husband (or possibly his family) has to complain because the sheet wasn't bloodied on consummation night. I'd suspect that in many cases no complaints were forthcoming, because the bloodless sheet wasn't surprising to any of the parties involved. Ostensibly if the author in Isaiah had said virgin, he would have meant virgin -- or else scripture can't validly be applied to modern life, since other terms would surely have drifted as much. Besides that, of course, the word virgin wasn't used. There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin. True, but that is a separate question. Not really, I think. If we're arguing about whether the locals would be impressed by a virgin conception, and especially since the event was tied in to Isaiah, it seems to me the wording of the Hebraic passage would be very relevant, and not at all a separate issue. I think were are discussing multiple things in these threads. 1 Oral tradition and political influences have changed the original story and wording of scripture. True -- and they surely did so between the penning of Isaiah and 33 AD as well. ;) 2 People can see the miraculous in mundane events when suggested to do so. *And* when *prone* to do so. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
JDG wrote: Sent: Sunday, 10 April 2005 7:20 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote It means that there wasn't a third option between going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was even vaguely plausible. You could choose one or the other. Really? No other options? Then what of all those that opposed the war, including almost every major religious organization across the globe? Was the Pope trying to stop democracy in Iraq? The World Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, the Middle East Council of Churches, the churches of Norway, Finland and Denmark, Greece, the United Methodist Church, my own Lutheran church and on and on and on -- were they all trying to stop democracy in Iraq when they opposed this war and proposed other options. I think that the answer to that is unequivocally yes, in effect. The policies advocated by the above would have resulted in Iraq's most recent democratic elections not happening. That is not to say that they all had the conscious intent of opposing democracy in Iraq, but that is the logical consequence of their positions, and so is one that should properly be defended by the holders of those positions. JDG Umm, I confess, this one I just had to comment on. Firstly, you/I/anyone, has no idea what may have transpired in Iraq if another course had been taken. They may well have had their own democratic elections, of their own making. And perhaps without all the deaths as well. It is plain silly to claim that the ONLY way to democracy in Iraq was the American invasion. And anyway, a single election, a democracy does not make. I hope it works out well, but you know as well as I do, that history is not an exact science, with some formula that says invasion = democracy, or no_invasion = no_democracy. What happened, happened, but many other things could have too. Some bad, some good. But that is by-the-by, we can agree to differ over that. What I had to comment on was the ludicrous thought that the Pope, The World Council of Churches etc etc need to stand up and defend their anti-democratic positions. They spoke out against war, not democracy. There is no logical consequence of their positions. That's a ridiculous leap of well, of unfaith. So we can assume from this that Bush the Elder was an enemy of Democracy as well can we? Or that GWB is a secret lover of totalitarian communism because he has not invaded North Korea? I bet such plans have been presented to him, dreamt up deep in the Pentagon. And presumably they have not happened because he opposed them. Ohh my god, GWB is a Communist !! They are about as sensible a statement as yours was. This is the 'subsume your will entirely to ours, or be deemed a traitor' sort of thinking that really scares me about the US at the moment. What is the point of even having a democracy if the only acceptable way to act in it is fully agree, fully support, and fully parrot the line of the Government, no matter how much it may go against your deepest feelings?. Were you a traitor when Clinton was President? By your line of argument here, I think you probably were. I'm sorry, but that sort of thinking, that the church needs to be held accountable for its anti-democratic heresy, because it opposes war, makes me look over my shoulder for Senator McCarthy. Are you, Or have you ever been, a member of the Roman Catholic Church? Andrew (Who isn't, and wasn't and probably never will be) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:53:25 -0400, JDG wrote The creation of the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of international peace and security that was in the collective interest of nations. The United Nations was not formed to prosecute wars, but to resolve conflicts as peacefully as possible -- to avoid war. it now becomes ever more conceivable that the US could use the extraordinary imbalance of power in its favor on behalf of human rights where it does not have an immediate strategic interest. Yes, the Pax Americana idea -- we could use our military power to bring peace to the world. But being led by humans, odds are we won't. The idea that power corrupts isn't just a cliche. I see history telling us again and again of the arrogance of power, even in societies that were created from fine principles. And not just nations, but churches, businesses, and virtually any human institution is vulnerable to hubris and corruption. And we should trust that one nation with extraordinary power, including nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, won't misuse them? No, thanks. I'd rather involve other parties in the decision-making. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. This logic, however, would preclude a country intervening against a government conducting a genocide against its own people. Please, please, please, you, Gautam and anybody else tempted to make this reductio ad absurdum argument. Cut it out. There is an enormous spectrum of possibilities between war and non-intervention. Of course, a more concrete example, comes from the original application of the Clinton Doctrine in Kosovo. As near as I can tell from following the subsequent discussion, you have argued that what I would call the Kosovo War was not a war at all, but a police action. I am hoping that you can perhaps expand upon this distinction. Certainly. The kind of collateral damage we're seeing in Iraq is unacceptable in a police action. Police, even SWAT teams and such, operate under very different rules. They target only the perpetrators. They don't destroy the infrastructure of the country. They don't replace local authority unless it is criminal. It is crime-fighting, not nation-building. So, to return to the original question, if one interprets Saddam Hussein as an aggressor under Catholic Just War theory But one cannot. By the Pope's own words, as well as by any reasonable interpretation of a just war. If we're going to talk about this from a Catholic perspective, we can hardly ignore the Pope's pleas for us to refrain from making war on Iraq, can we? I see endless war in our future if we do not at least listen to the voices of our friends (and now former friends) around the world and make some effort to build multinational support for such extreme measures. Otherwise, we're a nation built on checks and balances that has none at the international level. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Nick wrote: Certainly. The kind of collateral damage we're seeing in Iraq is unacceptable in a police action. Police, even SWAT teams and such, operate under very different rules. They target only the perpetrators. They don't destroy the infrastructure of the country. They don't replace local authority unless it is criminal. It is crime-fighting, not nation-building. Not that I don't agree with most of your post but didn't we target Bosnian infrastructure - bridges, power plants etc. with the bombing. I thought the only thing we tried to avoid was civilian casualties. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not that I don't agree with most of your post but didn't we target Bosnian infrastructure - bridges, power plants etc. with the bombing. I thought the only thing we tried to avoid was civilian casualties. -- Doug A good friend of mine was on the targeting team for Kosovo and says that we were attacking everything we could think of within about 48 hours after the first raids, because we had pretty much destroyed all of Serbia's purely military assets by that point, and we had to do something. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:04:35 -0400, JDG wrote Just imagine how history might have been different if Saddam Hussein had simply waited two or three more years or so, and asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons - and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as leader of the Arab people What nuclear weapons? He wasn't building any. Nick That's a remarkable statement, given that the UN inspectors after 1991 reported that he was within a couple of years (probably less) of having a functioning nuclear device. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 10:46 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:21:58 -0400, JDG wrote Note that this resolution requires these things to be destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless under international supervision. This was to ensure that Iraq could never use the suspicion that it had chemical or biological weapons to again threaten its neighbors. Iraq NEVER complied with this provision. Then where are the chemical and biological weapons? As I understand things, we've stopped even looking for them. Either they didn't exist, Iraq did destroy them, or they are incredibly well hidden. So, again, if one looks at the rationale for inspections - to provide assurances to the world that Iraq really did no longer have WMD weapons or programs, then it is impossible to say that the inspections were working, because no such assurances were ever produced. I have zero sympathy for Saddam and his buddies, but how can we fault them for failing to produce something that didn't exist? The world may never know the ultimate disposal of the weapons. But again, the United Nations required him to dispose of these weapons we *know* he had (unless of course you wish to deny that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians) under international supervision. Saddam Hussein never provided any evidence to UN inspectors that he had in fact destroyed his chemical and weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support, and manufacturing facilities related thereto;.Since the inspections could not provide assurances to us that this had been done, it is very curious that you claim that the inspections, quote, worked. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote That's a remarkable statement, given that the UN inspectors after 1991 reported that he was within a couple of years (probably less) of having a functioning nuclear device. Are you saying that he was actively working on something? If not, then the point is moot, at best. Nobody has said that he had the supplies on hand. Do you think we wouldn't have notice if he started *really* trying to buy uranium, centrifuge tubes and so forth? I suspect we are two years away from ending poverty in this country. That doesn't mean we're doing it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:33 AM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 00:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote That's a remarkable statement, given that the UN inspectors after 1991 reported that he was within a couple of years (probably less) of having a functioning nuclear device. Are you saying that he was actively working on something? I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable Source: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm There is a range of possibilities (from 6 months to many years) given there, but I see their consensus is that he had both the highly enriched uranium and the expertise necessary to build such a devise. Putting their statements together one sees an estimate of a capacity for the fairly rapid development of 2-3 bombs and a delivery system for those bombs ranging up to 1000 miles. If not, then the point is moot, at best. Nobody has said that he had the supplies on hand. It is indisputable that he had sufficient weapons grade uranium at the time. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
... asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons - and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as leader of the Arab people What nuclear weapons? He wasn't building any. On the contrary, Saddam Hussein's government was actively working on them. That is why some people were worried in 2002 -- they really did not think that Saddam Hussein was lying when he claimed to be continuing the effort. That is one of the reasons the Blix reports were so worrisome. The reports could not provide assurances that the Iraqis were lying and that they were not pursuing nuclear or, in a weaker situation in 2000, radiological weapons. (And the lack of US follow up means we still lack assurances.) Indeed, in the latter 1980s and early 1990s, to separate isotopes of uranium, Saddam Hussein's government was building calutrons, of all things. The US abandoned calutrons in the late 1940s or early 1950s as being too inefficent. In WWII, the US found that they separated more efficiently when provided partially enriched uranium, from the diffusion plant, than unenriched uranium. The US used calutrons because Lawrence knew how to design them and because they worked. As far as I know, the Iraqis never tried to build a diffusion plant. (There is the story that one of the Manhattan project people decided that silver would be good for calutrons' wire. Silver is a better conductor than copper and copper was being used for cartridges and other military purposes. The man, perhaps Gen. Groves, visited the Secretary of the Treasury to ask for several tons of silver, which the US government kept as backing for its `silver certificates' that could be redeemed in silver dollars. I got some when I was a child; but I don't have them any more. The Secretary of the Treasury is reputed to have said, `in this office, we speak of ounces of silver, not of tons'. But he loaned the silver.) As far as I know, the modern equivalents of calutrons are still used to produce highly purified isotopes. I think that a good portion, maybe all, of the uranium used in the Hiroshima bomb went through calutrons. (The Trinity and Nagasaki bombs used plutonium.) In the 1990s, pictures of the Iraqi calutron vacuum vessels were released by the UN inspectors and I saw them in Aviation Week and Space Technology. At the same time, or a bit later, I read about calutron history and design. Also, at that time, Saddam Hussein was researching delivery vehicles. People laugh about one of his delivery vehicles, his big gun. But it could have been defended against Iranian attack and maybe Saudi and Kuwaiti attack, too. (It could not have been defended against US attack.) The inspectors did not discover either the bomb project or the delivery projects for some time -- they were fooled. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:28:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable Source: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm You want me to accept a report from 1991 to tell me if Iraq was actively building nuclear weapons in 2003? Are you kidding? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Here, John is right: ... the purpose of inspections is to assure the rest of the world that Iraq did not retain any WMD stockpiles or programs. This assurance was impossible to make under the inspections. In January 2003, I read Blix's report on the inspections. While he did not report active violations of the terms (as he had in the previous report), he was also unable to provide assurances that the Iraqi government did not have radiological, nuclear, or chemical weapons or programs to create them, as they had had earlier. Blix said, in effect, that so far, inspections had failed. Blix was against the US invasion and argued at the time that in 6 months or a year, he could report more accurately one way or the other, but that at the time, he could not. In particular, in 2002, Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq started out by avoiding cooperation with the UN inspectors. Later Saddam Hussein's government did cooperate more, but that cooperation was not sufficiently evident that Blix could make assurances that he and his inspectors were not being fooled as they had been in the early 1990s. The January 2003 report was critical because after that time it became harder for the US government to do something else (such as borrow the same billion dollars a week, but use it to investigate and innovate alternative sources of energy, as I suggested earlier, rather than invade Iraq). You can argue that the US government acted years previously to prepare an attack against Iraq. The point is, both the Iraqi government and the UN inspectors understood the situation, and in January 2003, the UN inspectors could not provide assurances that they were not being fooled as they had been before. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 04:32 PM 4/10/2005 -0700, you wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:28:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable Source: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm You want me to accept a report from 1991 to tell me if Iraq was actively building nuclear weapons in 2003? Are you kidding? Before reacting so indignantly, perhaps you aught to re-examine the context of this particular line of discussion. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 6:32 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 09:28:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote I hope you would accept the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as a reasonable Source: http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/bas-iraq-rules-nuke-8-91.htm You want me to accept a report from 1991 to tell me if Iraq was actively building nuclear weapons in 2003? No. Are you kidding? Ah, missed communications. JDG was talking about the program in 1991. quote Just imagine how history might have been different if Saddam Hussein had simply waited two or three more years or so, and asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons - and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as leader of the Arab people. end quote He asserted his claim in '91. JDG's point was not that Hussein had an active nuclear program in 2003, but that he had one in 1991, when he claimed Kuwait. If he had finished a couple of bombs first, and then invaded Kuwait, things would have been different. In a sense, we were lucky. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:08:25 + (UTC), Robert J. Chassell wrote ... asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons - and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as leader of the Arab people What nuclear weapons? He wasn't building any. On the contrary, Saddam Hussein's government was actively working on them. That is why some people were worried in 2002 -- they really did not think that Saddam Hussein was lying when he claimed to be continuing the effort. And we haven't found evidence of this, two years after invading, because...? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:42:19 -0400, JDG wrote Before reacting so indignantly, perhaps you aught to re-examine the context of this particular line of discussion. I did not intend indignance. I had no idea you weren't talking about the war in which we are presently entangled. That's what I had been talking about in terms of inspections and the decision to go to war. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity(was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Nick, At 11:04 PM 4/9/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: The creation of the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of international peace and security that was in the collective interest of nations. The United Nations was not formed to prosecute wars, but to resolve conflicts as peacefully as possible -- to avoid war. That is true, but the United Nations also gave itself the authority to use war as a means to maintain international peace and security. Under the definition of just war theology that you provided, the US was *not* justified in launching Gulf War I to liberate the Emirate of Kuwait from occupation by Saddam Hussein.Presumably you would want to update your definition of just war theology to also justify wars like the First Gulf War and the Korean War. Of course, there are other problems with your definition of just war theology, as I (and others) have pointed out that it would preclude a country like the United States from intervening against a government conducting a genocide against its own people. You have claimed that this is a reductio ad absurdum argument, and pointed out that there is an enormous spectrum of possibilities between war and non-intervention. I think that you are missing the point, however. I don't think anyone is suggesting that other means short of war should be pursued whenever possible. In fact, I at least have specified that the exhaustion of other means is a *requirement* for just war under Catholic theology. The question before us, however, is would war *ever* be justifed on the part of the United States to put a stop to a genocide being conducted by a government against its own people? Your description of just war theology, however, would say that such a war would *never* be justifed, as a country like the United States would neither have been attacked, nor in imminent danger of being attacked. I find such logic very unsatisfying. I also find it somewhat disappointing that you did not respond to my point about police action requiring legitimate authority. Instead, you seem to be offering a semi-definition of police action based upon the level of force involved. What I think you are missing is the fact that in domestic affairs, governments have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, abd usually a true monopoly on heavy weaponry. In most countries, individuals are not allowed to maintain such things as tanks, anti-aircraft guns, and other heavy weaponry. This difference in capabalities is what defines the level of force used to resolve a problem. Thus, I think that trying to define the difference between police action and war on the basis of force ends up being a tautalogy. In domestic affairs, the government has a monopoly on the use of heavy weaponry, and so a lighter level of force is used in police actions. In international affairs, there are no such monopolies, and indeed only a few limitations on the use of force, and thus the heavier use of force, warfare is used in international affairs. Suffice to say, that while the NYPD may be New York's finest, the NYPD is not capable of putting a halt to state-sponsored genocide, nor to the sort of ethnic cleansing that occurred in Kosovo. And as Gautam and others have pointed out, even if we were to agree to your distinction between police action and warfare based on the size of force deployed, the size of force deployed in Kosovo much, much, more closely resembles warfare than it does a police action. Again, as noted earlier, in the Kosovo Action we destroyed every bit of Yugoslavia's infrastructure that we could, used heavy aircraft and cruise missiles, and targeted Yugoslavian government buildings without absolute assurance that everyone connected to them, or even in them, was a perpetrator of ethnic cleansing. Therfore, using the definition you seem to be proposing, our actions in Kosovo would seem to constitute a War and do not Meanwhile, I find it amazing that you can continue to suggest that the US [did] not at least listen to the voices of our friends... and make some effort to build multinational support for such extreme measures.The United States spent well over a year attempting to build support for the Iraq war. He sent Colin Powell to the United Nations, and various officials on trips to Europe. The US did *not* rush into war without listening to the voices of our friends. Indeed, let's consider a reasonable definition of the US's friends as being those countries with which the US has a formal Alliance (excluding the largely defunct Rio Treaty.)Of the 32 or so of these countries, at least 22 of them supported the Iraq War (I gave you the benefit of the doubt on any country that I was not quite sure of). Is this not multinational support and listiening to the voices of our friends? If not, then what is it? (And please remember that support for the Kosovo Action was not unanimous either, and was vigorously opposed by
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:45:22 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin. More with some than with others... Sound of Dave getting slapped. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 3:01 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Substantial long-term support for the internal opposition to Hussein would have been a third say: neither going to war nor leaving him in power. At the very least, we would have avoided being seen and opposed as occupiers, and at the best, we might have been credited with having uplifted the Iraqis. Dave What internal opposition? I don't know what the figure for Iraq was, but I can tell you that in East Germany (a far less violent state, in day-to-day affairs, than Saddam's Iraq) _one-third of the population_ was informing for the Stasi. Every person of any significance in Saddam's Iraq was regularly approached by secret police operatives trying to get them to agree to oppose the regime. Saddam Hussein ran a totalitarian regime modeled on Stalin's Russia. If you posed any threat to the regime, you were monitored, imprisoned, or (most often) just killed. We saw in 1991 what happened to people who tried to revolt against Saddam. What do you think are the odds that anyone in Iraq was going to try that again? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 22:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote What you are talking about is a slow and uncertain process. Compared to what? The speedy and certain process underway in Iraq??? Nick Relative to the two hundred year fall of Rome? Well, yes, definitely. Just because Nick Arnett wants something to be true, it isn't necessarily so. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 02:18 AM Saturday 4/9/2005, Dave Land wrote: On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 20:45:22 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin. More with some than with others... Sound of Dave getting slapped. Dave I was tempted to respond but managed to resist . . . --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 10:45 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) On Apr 8, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: Sigh. Reproduction via union of sperm and egg is sex. It's not meaningful to speak of an asexual pregnancy, and it's impossible for artificial insemination techniques to have existed 2K years ago. Sure, this is readily apparent to *us*, but back then any pregnancy in concert with an intact hymen would be considered miraculous. How much knowledge of a hymen was there ca. 2K years ago, though? I mean, did anyone in Galilee even know they existed? Uh..I would think that knowledge was universal. People back then knew how to tell if a woman was a virgin and would test the question if there was any question before a marriage. I think it's a real stretch, BTW, to say that a woman who's experienced penetrative anal intercourse is a virgin. But what would those ancient people think? Would they necessarily know if such a thing occured? What difference would that make? AAs any stage magician knows, people can be fooled into thinking that unusual things have occured when the truth is rather prosaic. Ostensibly if the author in Isaiah had said virgin, he would have meant virgin -- or else scripture can't validly be applied to modern life, since other terms would surely have drifted as much. Besides that, of course, the word virgin wasn't used. There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin. True, but that is a separate question. I think were are discussing multiple things in these threads. 1 Oral tradition and political influences have changed the original story and wording of scripture. 2 People can see the miraculous in mundane events when suggested to do so. There might be more in there that I'm not recalling offhand. xponent Reality Lies Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 7:59 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) I didn't see analysis of what would happen without war from the religeous figures opposed to the war. That sounds pretty reasonable to me because we shouldn't expect, for example, an exemplary moral theologian to have any special insights into the likelyhood of the fall of any government. On the other hand, widespead agreement among accademics and policy makes who differ greatly on other issues, seems to me to be our best shot at understanding consequences. I fail to see any reason to choose between the two in decision-making, which is why I offered no special weight to academics. So, in your opinion, someone who has a cursuary knowledge of history and international relation's opinion about the likelyhood of future outcomes has as much weight as the best respected people in international relations? When we discuss whether or not Hussein would soon fall from power, we are not discussing ethics, we are discussing facts that can and will be discovered. While history and international relations are not science, I do think that a detailed analysis of hisory provides a better understanding than a cursorary analysis. A consensus of the best of those who do such analysis is the best guess we can come up with. Well, we've been discussing this for over two years: I saw three choices at the time: continuing containmnet, the war, and withdrawing the sactions and the no fly zones. Changing the containment slightly might have improved it slightly, but I didn't see anyone on the list or anywhere else lay out a program for regiem change that did not involve war. Let me quote selectively from Julia's quote of the first step quote As urged by Human Rights Watch and others, the U.N. Security Council should establish an international tribunal to indict Saddam and his top officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indicting Saddam would send a clear signal to the world that he has no future. It would set into motion both internal and external forces that might remove him from power. It would make it clear that no solution to this conflict will include Saddam or his supporters staying in power. end quote There was a six-point plan from the churches, which Tony Blair took very seriously, Maybe as a way of finding support for actually doing something, but I cannot imagine that he would think that an indictment would work magic. Let me consider just the first step. With the French being paid of by Hussein, as Julia points out, achieving this would be very problematic. Further, the second paragraph is unbelieveably vague. Why would a dictator who was firmly in control of massive forces have no future because a body without power behind it pronounced him guilty? How would the indictment be different than security council resolutions? Second, let's look at the forces that are to be involved. What internationl force, short of attacking with superior military power, could compel Hussein? What internal forces would exist? The only force that I could think of was the Kurdsand I don't think them marching on Bagdad is a realistic scenario. With Iraq as a police state, it would be very hard for someone who wanted to resist to know if a hint of a resistance movement came from a true member of the movement or someone paid by Hussein. This is, in a sense, a weakened version of the plan of Bush I. By defeating him soundly in Kuwait, with the army surrendering en mass, they accomplished two things. 1) The struck a strong blow to his image as a powerful sucessful leader. 2) They devistated his armies. Given this, they expected him to fall. But, he did not. Now, this plan is, in essence, to write him a very very stern note, with nothing to back it up. What happens if he ignores the indictment? All he has to do is say the Hague is controled by the Zionest conspiricy and he is a stronger champion of Arab causes. Korea is about the worst example to pick, since it looked far more like an undeclared war than a police action. Certainly it was *called* a police action, but that doesn't mean it was conducted like one. OK, but your point was that there was no just war theology that allowed premeptive wars. Aquinas was a theologian. I think Kant's work pretty well eliminates the litter bug nuking issue. Then what is a police action? You must have a defintion I haven't seen. OK, let me clarify this. You would be opposed to using unilateral military force to stop genocide on moral grounds, right? Even if we found that the killing in Sudan was intensifying and that the Arabs were planning a final solution, we would be oblidged to refrain from military action. Not military action, war. Are you saying that it would be a moral course
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 11:14 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments) On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Dave Land wrote: I wonder if we couldn't have more effective discussions here if we said things like I couldn't find a compelling justification the invasion instead of the invasion was unjustified. The former asserts one's own observation, not subject to contradiction (ha!), while the other asserts an opinion as though it were truth, subject to lengthy and quarrelsome debates. Well, why though? Isn't everything we state that is less than 100% provable an opinion? Isn't it valid to read in the phrase In my opinion... before any declaration, at least of values or judgments? Obviously that wouldn't work for things like math ... [In my opinion] 2 + 2 = 4. But isn't it self-apparent that when I say the Iraq war is unjustifiable, I am issuing my own opinion on the topic? But, the words actually do mean different things. Let me make two statements I consider true about Iraq and one that I consider false. true The actions of Hussein against his own people were unjustifiable George Bush's decision to invade Iraq was mistaken end true false Invading Iraq was an unjustifyable action end false Let me reword what I just wrote. I do not believe that that a reasonable, ethical person could support Hussein's actions against his own people. I do think a reasonable ethical person could have supported the war in Iraq, but I believe such a person was mistaken. So, before the war, Gautam and I each thought the other was honestly mistaken, but still reasonable people of good will. I was trained to use these nuances in discussion to convey my meaning more clearly. It's worthwhile in physics debates, because it allows the differentiation between crackpot theories and theories that one considers problematic and theories that one can see the basis for but one's intuition opposes. Finally, I have difficulty with the idea of just three states: Yes, No, and Uncertain. There is a great deal of difference between a 0.1% chance and a 99.9% chance, although both are uncertain. Language that reflects the degree of confidence helps foster rational discussions which can foster a greater understanding by the participants. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Democracy in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 04:17 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 15:01:52 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote It means that there wasn't a third option between going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was even vaguely plausible. You could choose one or the other. Really? No other options? Then what of all those that opposed the war, including almost every major religious organization across the globe? Was the Pope trying to stop democracy in Iraq? The World Council of Churches, the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, the Middle East Council of Churches, the churches of Norway, Finland and Denmark, Greece, the United Methodist Church, my own Lutheran church and on and on and on -- were they all trying to stop democracy in Iraq when they opposed this war and proposed other options. I think that the answer to that is unequivocally yes, in effect. The policies advocated by the above would have resulted in Iraq's most recent democratic elections not happening. That is not to say that they all had the conscious intent of opposing democracy in Iraq, but that is the logical consequence of their positions, and so is one that should properly be defended by the holders of those positions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
A Third Way in Iraq Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 04:53 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: It means that there wasn't a third option between going to war to remove Hussein and leaving him in power. It didn't exist. No one proposed one that was even vaguely plausible. You could choose one or the other. Substantial long-term support for the internal opposition to Hussein would have been a third way: neither going to war nor leaving him in power. At the very least, we would have avoided being seen and opposed as occupiers, and at the best, we might have been credited with having uplifted the Iraqis. We tried that for 12 years. That same policy, of course, has worked very effectively for the last 40+ years in Cuba as well. JDG - Next, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
Nick Arnett wrote Korea is about the worst example to pick, since it looked far more like an undeclared war than a police action. If I remember my history rightly, senior members of the US government thought that the initial part of the Korean war was a feint. They thought that WWIII would actually involve the invasion of Western Europe. Among other influences on the US government, they understood that Stalin had said that his troops did not get as far as Tzar Alexander's (whose troops got to Paris after Napoleon was defeated). Incidentally, Izzy Stone suggested that North Korea invaded the South in response to US manipulations of one commodity or another, manipulations that were on their way to bankrupting North Korea. However, this does not contradict the notion that senior members of the US government thought that the initial part of the Korean war was a feint. (I do not know whether this commodity's price manipulation occurred. At that time, commodities' prices were very volatile. If I remember a graph I saw years and years ago, it was not until after the Korean war that commodities' prices became somewhat more stable.) -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 06:41 AM 4/8/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: What you are talking about is a slow and uncertain process. Compared to what? The speedy and certain process underway in Iraq??? I would say compared to North Korea, where the sorts of policies you advocate resulted in the DPRK constructing nuclear weapons right under our noses, and now we have a *real* problem on our hands there. Just imagine how history might have been different if Saddam Hussein had simply waited two or three more years or so, and asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons - and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as leader of the Arab people. I think that the above was part of the core for the Iraq case - it isn't just what Iraq was capable of doing today. It was also the fact that once Iraq *does* manage to buy, build, or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons (from say, oh I don't know... North Korea!) , that at that moment in time it will be TOO LATE to do anything at all about it - or at least that do anything about Iraq at such a point without taking enormous risks. Moreover, there is also mixed in here the simple fact that in a post-9/11 world, that the collapse of a nuclear-armed totalitarian state carries *enormous* risks for the United States - and that puts the US in all kinds of binds. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 10:19 PM 4/7/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: I think declarations that our only choice was invasion ignores the success of the inspections; not only those just prior to that event but the earlier ones that we now know ended all of Hussein's WMD programs. That is a rather good point that I'm embarrassed to have ommitted. Yes, now we know that the inspections *were* working! You have an interesting definition of working. In my mind, the purpose of inspections is to assure the rest of the world that Iraq did not retain any WMD stockpiles or programs. This assurance was impossible to make under the inspections. Allow me to emphasize, at NO POINT did Iraq ever comply with UN inspections. For example, consider UNSC Resolution 687 (1991), where the Security Council invoked its binding authority under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. 8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision of... all chemical and weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support, and manufacturing facilities related thereto;. Note that this resolution requires these things to be destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless under international supervision. This was to ensure that Iraq could never use the suspicion that it had chemical or biological weapons to again threaten its neighbors.Iraq NEVER complied with this provision. Moreover, the inspections that did occur were NEVER *unconditional.* Saddam Hussein always insisted upon placing conditions on the movement and access of inspectors, so as to give the definite impression that he was hiding something. So, again, if one looks at the rationale for inspections - to provide assurances to the world that Iraq really did no longer have WMD weapons or programs, then it is impossible to say that the inspections were working, because no such assurances were ever produced. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Christian Justification for War L3! Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 05:23 PM 4/6/2005 -0700,Nick wrote: Are you saying that war is the only way to get rid of an evil dictator? Or war was the only way to get rid of this one? Am I mistaken in believing that in almost every other case, our policy has been not to go to war for that reason? Is removing an evil dictator justification for this war? For what it's worth, there is no major religion that accepts such a justification. There are two great religious traditions with regard to war -- pacifism and just war theology. The latter never allows for a pre-emptive war. Virtually every major religious body in the world (the one notable exception being the Southern Baptist Association) urged us not to undertake it, before it began, which means before we even knew for sure that Iraq was no threat to us. Very aggressive inspections by an international force more like police than military, indicting the leader in a world court and other pressure could be brought to bear in such situations. Well-developed policies and plans for such intervention, backed by international agreement, would go a very long way toward peace. And so would many things that I have a direct part in -- consumption of oil and other scarce resouces, more diverse voices in the media, a more intelligent national discussion of issues and values... Nick Nick, You ask if removing an evil dictator is justification for war. I answer *yes* to that question, and further believe that yes it was the only way to get rid of this one. We spent 12 years trying all sorts of sanctions, air strikes, no-fly-zones, and funding for opposition groups, all to no avail in Iraq.As an amateur geologist, I surely agree that nothing lasts forever, but the experience in places like Cuba, the DPRK, and now Zimbabwe all suggest that this could be a very, very, long time in coming. Thus, I believe that the evils perpetuated by the Iraqi regime for ia reasonably long lifespan into the future under the status quo must be considered in evaluating the justness of the Iraq War. Anyhow, you go on to suggest that there are two great religious traditions with regard to war - pacifism and just war theology.I think that your statement is a little Christian-centric, perhaps intentionally on your part. But even within the Christian milieu, I think that one of the reasons for the lack of a more robust tradition regarding war is the fact that Christian theology has not quite caught up with a post-Holocaust, cum-United Nations, post-Clinton Doctrine, single hyperpower world. I would point out that the Catholic Catechism phrases this criteria regarding just war, as merely that the war must be waged against an aggressor, and that 'the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.' (As an aside, the other criteria for just war in the Catholic Catechism are the exhaustion of other means (12 years in this case), serious prospect of success (not really a question in this case), and the use of arms must not produce greater evils (i.e. you can't justify a war to stop the execution of one innocent man, since war would result in the death of other innocents.)I know that you are not a Catholic, so I will respond to your definition of a just war first, but I want to make sure that you are aware of the different frame of reference from which I will be operating. In the past, war was essentially a geo-strategic event. Countries conducted wars to expand their power or influence at the expense of other countries. After the horrors of the Holocaust, it became suddenly at least conceivable that it could be desirable to conduct a war for moral reasons, rather than for strategic reasons. The creation of the United Nations following World War II crystalized a concept of international peace and security that was in the collective interest of nations. These ideas were more-or-less put on hold during The Cold War, however, until Bill Clinton formally made it a policy that the US would, when it could, make war on another country principally on humanitarian grounds and in defence of universal human rights. In a world with a single hyperpower, it now becomes ever more conceivable that the US could use the extraordinary imbalance of power in its favor on behalf of human rights where it does not have an immediate strategic interest. Anyhow, in my interpretation, the only update to just war theology required for the modern world, would be to consider a regime like Saddam Hussein's as being an aggressor based upon its crimes against humanity, its past history, and the reasonable consideration of its future actions, particularly with its hands on WMD's.But more on this later Under your interpretation just war theology requires imminent self-defence (or perhaps even *immediate* self-defense) as a pre-condition for just war.This logic, however, would preclude a country intervening against a
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:04:35 -0400, JDG wrote Just imagine how history might have been different if Saddam Hussein had simply waited two or three more years or so, and asserted his claim to Kuwait *after* acquiring nuclear weapons - and then began to talk about securing the Muslim Holy Land as leader of the Arab people What nuclear weapons? He wasn't building any. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:21:58 -0400, JDG wrote Note that this resolution requires these things to be destroyed, removed, or rendered harmless under international supervision. This was to ensure that Iraq could never use the suspicion that it had chemical or biological weapons to again threaten its neighbors. Iraq NEVER complied with this provision. Then where are the chemical and biological weapons? As I understand things, we've stopped even looking for them. Either they didn't exist, Iraq did destroy them, or they are incredibly well hidden. So, again, if one looks at the rationale for inspections - to provide assurances to the world that Iraq really did no longer have WMD weapons or programs, then it is impossible to say that the inspections were working, because no such assurances were ever produced. I have zero sympathy for Saddam and his buddies, but how can we fault them for failing to produce something that didn't exist? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
--- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there's nothing wrong with opposing the unjustifiable attack on Iraq, why are you so committed to twisting the tits of everyone who does oppose it? Because so many of them say things like calling it unjustifiable, when, of course, it's extremely justifiable. It might or might not have been the right decision, but there were very good reasons for making it. It always amazes me that people who make fun of the President for being unintelligent are apparently unable to see why someone might disagree with them on this issue. As for my original reasons for opposing the war -- two years ago I was thinking more in terms of how we'd look to the rest of the world, particularly since, in my view, Afghanistan still needed a lot of attention, and OBL was at large and *not* in Iraq. I hadn't thought, then, of the morass that it's become, and the expense of it went way beyond anything I would have guessed. Had I known then what I know now, I would have opposed the attack more strenuously than I did. Wow, Warren, your ability to ignore everything that's happening in Iraq right now is pretty impressive. It appears to be, you know, working. It might not, of course - I'd say it's something like 60/40 right now that it will, which are _far_ better odds than I gave it before the war, much less a few months ago. I asked you this before and you didn't have any sort of answer. What will you do if this works? It appears to be working. The odds for a democratic government in Iraq are better than they have ever been. 10 years from now, if Iraq is a stable democracy that looks sort of like Turkey - if it is the least-badly governed state in the Middle East- will it still be an unjustifiable war? People do things for many reasons, and WMD were only one of the many reasons we invaded Iraq. What will you do if this works? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 7, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there's nothing wrong with opposing the unjustifiable attack on Iraq, why are you so committed to twisting the tits of everyone who does oppose it? Because so many of them say things like calling it unjustifiable, when, of course, it's extremely justifiable. I don't think it is. We can't just bomb the crap out of a nation that's done nothing to us in the name of regime change. That's arbitrary and, I believe, wrong. As for my original reasons for opposing the war -- two years ago I was thinking more in terms of how we'd look to the rest of the world, particularly since, in my view, Afghanistan still needed a lot of attention, and OBL was at large and *not* in Iraq. I hadn't thought, then, of the morass that it's become, and the expense of it went way beyond anything I would have guessed. Had I known then what I know now, I would have opposed the attack more strenuously than I did. Wow, Warren, your ability to ignore everything that's happening in Iraq right now is pretty impressive. It appears to be, you know, working. I haven't ignored that, actually. It might be working. But at what cost to US image worldwide, at what cost in terms of incentive for further terrorism, and at what cost to human life? It might not, of course - I'd say it's something like 60/40 right now that it will, which are _far_ better odds than I gave it before the war, much less a few months ago. I asked you this before and you didn't have any sort of answer. What will you do if this works? I answered. You ignored it. Just like you ignored the cites I sent along disproving your claim that bald eagles aren't endangered. You're pretty good yourself at ignoring things, it seems. Here's a quick little piece of unsolicited advice: Admitting you were wrong about something will not kill you. It appears to be working. The odds for a democratic government in Iraq are better than they have ever been. 10 years from now, if Iraq is a stable democracy that looks sort of like Turkey - if it is the least-badly governed state in the Middle East- will it still be an unjustifiable war? Yes. Because it was not a war pressed by the Iraqis in the name of freeing themselves from a tyrant. It was an assault on a nation that did *nothing at all* to us. We have killed thousands of civilians, tortured dozens of prisoners and pushed Islamic extremists even further over the cliff. In the name of doing what? Establishing a democracy? Why didn't we focus on doing that in Afghanistan first? I think it's because -- and this is really important -- Iraq was sexier. GWB would be able to finish what Daddy was unable to see to fruition. That's the elephant in the room very few conservatives seem to want to face with honesty. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 12:10 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: though there's some wiggle room there -- IIRC the original text had it as behold, a young woman shall conceive. Which is correct, afaik. And hardly remarkable. Young women conceive pretty regularly. Embedding such a phrase in a prophecy is a little like predicting rain in Seattle. Lazarus was never dead. No one else was resurrected either. I take it you were there, then? I don't have to have been there. Resurrection is not possible. It has not reliably, verifiably occurred in the history of humanity, not once, not twice, not ever. And the epistles of Paul, while effective at establishing and maintaining the infant cult of Iasus, read like a lot of hard-right propaganda, which to me is more or less what they are. Revelation is also hooey. You say that like someone who has the sure word of God on that issue . . . Nope, just healthy (lay) biblical scholarship. It is interesting that you are much more likely to state things as absolutes than most people I know who do claim to have the sure word of God on issues. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 10:58 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:59 PM Thursday 4/7/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Not really. Virgin conception is impossible, I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I can think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus without her having ever had sexual intercourse and while leaving her a _virgo intacta_ to examination. I have heard that it's possible (but not entirely likely) for a woman to become pregnant after ejaculate gets just to the opening of the vagina. (The space that's enough for the menstrual flow to get out is certainly enough for some other fluid to get in) That's a lot easier than implanting a pre-fertilized egg (and it's more likely to take and produce a live birth -- IVF isn't the most reliable way to get things done). That is indeed one of the ways. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 12:04 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I am not a fertility specialist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I can think of ways to implant a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus without her having ever had sexual intercourse and while leaving her a _virgo intacta_ to examination. There was a case years ago of a woman who was a virgin and became pregnant because she engaged in anal sex and just happened to have a fissure between her rectum and her vagina. Sigh. Reproduction via union of sperm and egg is sex. It's not meaningful to speak of an asexual pregnancy, and it's impossible for artificial insemination techniques to have existed 2K years ago. But the fact that we know how to do it now contradicts your absolute assertion that Virgin conception is impossible. All it would prove if such a case did occur some 2 millennia ago is that it required intervention by someone or something with access to knowledge and technology at least equal to that available to a twenty-first-century doctor, whether that someone or something was space aliens or God. I think it's a real stretch, Ahem. BTW, to say that a woman who's experienced penetrative anal intercourse is a virgin. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 12:52 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 7, 2005, at 10:40 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: _There's nothing wrong with opposing the war_. Knowing what I know now about the competence of the Administration, I don't think _I_ would have supported the war (not knowing then what I know now, I don't regret my stance then - it was impossible for me to know then what I know now). What's wrong is pretending that _not_ going to war didn't also have costs. If there's nothing wrong with opposing the unjustifiable attack on Iraq, Nothing beats an argument which starts by assuming what you are supposed to be proving. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 01:28 AM Friday 4/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Why didn't we focus on doing that in Afghanistan first? I think it's because -- and this is really important -- Iraq was sexier. GWB would be able to finish what Daddy was unable to see to fruition. That's the elephant in the room very few conservatives seem to want to face with honesty. Perhaps they felt that Daddy should have finished it when he had the chance. --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
