Josh writes…
A dark cartoon for the the start of the year following the shocking events in Paris and stories about the blocking of ideas and closed minds.
I wonder what will happen when the Green Blob meets in Paris later in the year?
Josh writes…A dark cartoon for the the start of the year following the shocking events in Paris and stories about the blocking of ideas and closed minds.
I wonder what will happen when the Green Blob meets in Paris later in the year?
There is no such thing as free speech, there is only what is politically, socially, culturally or historically acceptable. Everyone has a right to be offended, no one has the right to use violence because they are offended.
The Middle East is an extremely violent place and a place where the west goes to practice violence. Not sure why when a relatively tiny part of this violence leaks back to the west the west is offended.
“Not sure why when a relatively tiny part of this violence leaks back to the west the west is offended.”
Perhaps some people just don’t like being dead?
Well, that escalated quickly.
Gotta watch for that, always.
So I see Josh gets slings and arrows for his cartoon. (:
Following the links is always a good idea.
BTW, I am definitely not Charlie. I object to female mutilation, polygamy, Shari- courts, madrasas funded by taxes, guns owned by musli-s who attend mosq-es in countries where the citizens do not own arms, and I want ALAC resolutions to pass in every state. I do not need a picture of a pineapple with the name of Mo underneath it, because I would rather have equality before the law, and because I might get an opportunity to share the truth of the gospel with a mus-im. So no, not Charlie. The only question is, where did the murderers get their guns in France?
A bit of old business. Was Chancellor Angela Merkel correct in 2010 – are there more mosq0es in Germany than churches?
“Our country is going to carry on changing, and integration is also a task for the society taking up the task of dealing with immigrants,” Ms. Merkel told the daily newspaper. “For years we’ve been deceiving ourselves about this. Mosques, for example, are going to be a more prominent part of our cities than they were before.”
The longer CAGW projections exceed observations, the higher the probability CAGW is about Leftistist political agendas and not about science.
The moment leftists said, “the CAGW debate is over”, it became evident CAGW was not about the free and open exchange of ideas and adherence to the scientific method, but rather about political agendas.
If you like your Leftist ideology of government control, you can keep it. Period! (TM).
In the CAGW “debate”, leftists are free to “debate” among themselves whether ECS falls between 3C and 12C, but as soon as anyone suggests ECS may well be closer to 0.5C~2C, that person becomes a “climate terrorist” that should be brought enchained to the The Hague and charged with “crimes against humanity”…. It’s become insane….
People are getting sick and tired of it.
BTW, a few days ago a saw something very interesting. I read pro-CAGW article on Yahoo News and found that every single one of the 136 comments written on the article ridiculed CAGW…
I appreciate that ridicule doesn’t really have a place in pure science, but CAGW is no longer about science and is deserving of ridicule…
Bubba Cow
January 10, 2015 at 11:56 am
Politics hijacked science? Just say “endocannabinoid” to any group on the right and watch the name calling and screaming begin.
It is not a party thing. It is human nature.
M Simon “Just say endocannabinoid to any group on the right and watch the name calling and screaming begin.”
While I haven’t actually tried this, I’m pretty sure the response would be “what?” and visions of aliens from Star Trek. Dangerous cannabinoids running around eating people.
Screaming and name calling are childish, emotional responses more properly found among leftists. You can see it daily on Huffington Post; not so much right here.
Friends:
I write to disagree with those who are objecting to the existence of this thread.
I express solidarity with and support for all Muslims, Jews, feminists, religious believers, political believers, and etc. who suffer violence and threats of violence because of who and/or what they are.
WUWT exists to enable honest debate mostly about climate issues. At times like the present it is important that we express our respect for differences honestly expressed.
Richard
When we say we ‘respect’ others’ beliefs, we don’t really. It’s actually an acknowledgement, not ‘respect’. You can even hear it when someone says, “I respect your opinion, but…”. You would like to truly respect it, but it goes against your own belief (for which you may even have evidence, when they do not). When I hear ‘God is great’, it means absolutely nothing to me, as I am an atheist. So I don’t respect it – I cannot, as to me, it is simply nonsensical. I do, however, acknowledge their belief, and steer my argument accordingly. I don’t respect Christianity or Islam, or any of the myriad of other religious beliefs. To me, they have as much veracity as Santa Claus. And it’s precisely because of this conflict that we are talking about two crazies with guns walking into an office in Paris. The cartoonists couldn’t show respect to Mohammed, as they didn’t recognise the idea of such a thing.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
You being a bigot does NOT mean everybody is a bigot.
I repeat, I express solidarity with and support for all Muslims, Jews, feminists, religious believers, political believers, and etc. who suffer violence and threats of violence because of who and/or what they are.
And there are “crazies with guns walking into an office in Paris” precisely because there are bigots who say things like
People who respect the beliefs of others cannot be “crazies with guns”.
Richard
Richard, do you realize your calling Ghost a bigot contradicts your statement of respect for others beliefs?
Tom in Florida
It doesn’t. Please explain how you think it does.
Bigotry is not a “belief”: it is a disrespect of the belief(s) of others.
Richard
@richardscourtney: January 11, 2015 at 5:32 am
Richard, do you not realize that your above statement will only serve to embolden those persons within the aforesaid groups who condone and/or are responsible for acts of violence and/or threats of violence against members of the other groups? Or members of their own group.
All of the aforesaid persons within said groups are …. “who and/or what they are” …. simply because their environment nurtured them to be who and/or what they are ….. and in most every case involving violence ….. it was either an act of violence or a threat of violence against their person that effected said nurturing.
The “nurture’ers” of said violence have to be singled out and re-nurtured, reformed or punished, otherwise you are just “spinning-your-wheels” with useless rhetoric.
Richard,
Putting a label on someone because of your own beliefs is bigotry. You labeled Ghost a bigot but I do not see him as such. Do I accept his point of view? Maybe or maybe not. But should I disrespect him for it, no. He has earned no disrespect simply by saying what he says. It is similar to the differences on economics and politics between you and I. Would you label me a bigot because I do not believe that a government should forcibly take from one to give to another? Would you label me a bigot because it is my belief that anyone who does believe in the government doing so is wrong? BTW, I do not know GOBJK other than from his postings here.
It is ironic that on the one hand Richard proclaims his respect for all the religions and on the other hand he supports the slogan “Je suis Charlie”. Charlie Hebdo was the exemplification of non-respect for the Islam (and other religions for that matter) to the point that they were accused of being Islamophobes. You can’t have it both ways, Richard.
Friends:
I hope nobody is offended that I provide this single answer to all the disputants of my comments.
Bigotry is a disrespect for the belief(s) of others. Somebody is openly declaring he is a bigot when he writes
Furthermore, that person is declaring that because HE is a bigot all others are also bigots because he says he is incapable of imagining that others do really respect others’ beliefs.
I accepted that he intended what he wrote and I still see no reason to dispute that he intended what he wrote. I did not “label” him: I accepted that he intended what he wrote and I used the dictionary definition of what he said of himself.
Openly opposing bigots is NOT supporting murderous extremists who use politics or religion as an excuse for their actions. It is a dangerous falsehood to claim that expressing support for people with other beliefs is supporting bigots, crazies and extremists.
And people who cannot recognise the difference between satire and disrespect are sad and dangerous: some of them committed murder in Paris, and one has claimed it is “ironic” that I do recognise the difference so I say Je suis Charlie.
I am saddened that these obvious truths are so easily forgotten by some. I remind of “First they came for … etc..”
Richard
Je suis The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley!
Je ne suis PAS richardscourtenay du tout, du tout!
Richard, the trouble is, you chose the wrong word in your hastened disgust at my words. Were you more intelligent, then you might have thought it through first. A bigot is someone who dislikes others for their beliefs, and is intolerant of others’ views, it isn’t someone who shows a lack of respect. Respect is having regard for someone’s feelings about their beliefs – two entirely different things, Richard. Should I have respect for someone when they tell me that they see fairies at the bottom of their garden, Richard? No! Should I have respect for someone when they tell me that they see ghosts on a regular basis? No! Should I have respect for someone when they tell me that they and their cat were abducted by aliens, and both interferred with? No! Should I have respect for someone who tells me that they believe there is a man with a beard controlling everything, and that he sent his son down to us to turn over a table? No! I am mindful of what they say, but I will show such people no respect, Richard, as what they are saying is nonsense to me. I tolerate it (meaning I will listen – often without comment), but I don’t dislike them for their beliefs. Do you see now, Richard? I don’t respect Christianity, Islam, or any religion because I think it is puerile nonsense of the most absurd level, and those beliefs exist without any evidence whatsoever. So why should I pay it any reverence? I don’t dislike these believers, Richard (the crazies, I do), so I am not a bigot. I’m happy to give you an education any time. I like giving to the needy. You can call me anything you like, I won’t take offence. All I ask is that you use what intelligence you do have, and choose the correct word for anything you think I am (and I wouldn’t have been called it for the first time)!
richardscourtenay says; “Openly opposing bigots is NOT supporting murderous extremists who use politics or religion as an excuse for their actions. It is a dangerous falsehood to claim that expressing support for people with other beliefs is supporting bigots, crazies and extremists.”
This is a bizarre disconnect that pops up all the time “…murderous extremists who use politics or religion as an excuse…”
It’s not an excuse. It’s their inspiration. What else makes them “extremist”?
It seems that people, seeing tolerance and compassion as virtues, assume that they, therefore, are unfalteringly tolerant and compassionate. This results in them being apologists for the most bigoted philosophies and condemning as bigots those that can tell the difference between Mein Kampf and the Four Noble Truths.
I’ve been a “climate denier” for 15 years, an “infidel” for always and I’m proud to qualify as a bigot in your book.
Mebbe and The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley:
Mebbe, your implication that I support Mein Kampf is an obscene untruth. I suspect it may be an example of psychological projection.
TGOBJC, I did NOT “choose the wrong word” when refuting your bigotry that you have iterated. Please try to consider the meaning of your own words both for your own good and for the good of others.
I respect the views of you guys so much that I will campaign to enable you to say them, but I state that your views are wrong and dangerous.
Richard
richardscourtney,
Here’s how I think it works. When you state someone’s views are wrong and dangerous, you do NOT respect their views. When you say that you will campaign to enable someone to say wrong and dangerous views you DO respect their person.
There is nothing wrong with disrespecting someone’s views. Doing the same for their person is another matter entirely. Know the difference.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley “When we say we ‘respect’ others’ beliefs, we don’t really.”
As soon as I see “we” I know I’m dealing with the left wing; either the sheep or the shepherd; usually both at the same time — a sheep that thinks he’s the shepherd (and a mind reader!).
“I am an atheist.”
Impossible. It is not a thing anyone can be, for it does not describe any property of a person.
I conclude that you are more properly an anti-theist; with well-defined beliefs about the nonexistence of the objects of other people’s beliefs. You wouldn’t spam a climate blog with your non-information except that it is your religion, your proselyting, to do exactly that.
“I don’t respect Christianity or Islam, or any of the myriad of other religious beliefs.”
Obviously. While that may be common, coming to a climate blog and announcing it is thankfully uncommon.
“To me, they have as much veracity as Santa Claus.”
Sometimes more, sometimes less. Saint Nicholas is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas
Freedom of speech? Tell it to the BBC. This national broadcaster will not allow any commentary that is contrary to the main stream view on AGW. Even though we have more technical data and serious analysis on such organs as the Watts site showing responsibility and scientific method the BBC will not conscience any of its findings or those of people from the same persuasion to grace the air waves. Since when has any science been thought of as subversive in such a way since Galileo and his spat with the Vatican or any theory accepted at face value (the word ‘theory’ should provide a clue). Instead; the BBC uses denial and scoffs at the serious determination. It is in such antagonistic and unprincipled ways that freedom is denied. It is the BBC that is wearing the crank’s sandwich board, “The end is nigh”, while the serious investigation and hopefulness is blanked out. We have to come to the conclusion that people slip into hopelessness and extremism by way of manipulation of events by authority.
Once, when states were self-contained entities and communication was poor, lies may have been easy to maintain and facts censured. But today we are open to all manner of counter argument and new intuitions and insinuations. The populace is far more sophisticated and can operate in its own cause, while governments still seem to conform to the old controlling malaise. That, in the 21st century, governments dictate to their people and propagandise their prejudices is wasteful and archaic. We know that wide arrays of small computers have immense power and networks of massed arrays are used as a research tool on-line to great affect. It is about time countries used the powers of their people more purposefully and put the problem out there, for it is with the people that the answer lies.
Charlie Hebdo tells us so much about ourselves. Our proscriptions, amusement, freedoms and interactions are but extensions of that which our states allow. They pick their winners and losers and when their plans come to nothing it is the commoners that pay the bill. That the state of Europe has inflicted circumstances on its people and persists in failing policies long after their usefulness is at an end, is an aspect of the ancien regime that has been at the root of much of the troubles that Europe has been subjected too. In climate science we see states forming an opinion on scant information and forming forecasts which are ripe for disproving and yet, over time, becoming more obdurate in the cause and more intransigent along the way. Hubris has taken over from fact. States turn to antagonists, rotten apples in barrels and their canker infects organs of reason and ingenuity in a way reminiscent of Newton and his wasted years striving for gold from base metals. Our denial is not corrupt it is the true way. It is the insistence on procedure, publication and argument leading to discovery, not a system of archaic imaginings looking for signs that leans more towards astrology rather than reason.
Malcolm, I’m fairly new to this forum and so I’m sure I have missed a lot of the discussion. Be that as it may.
I am simply fascinated (and appalled) that some rag like BBC would have “views” and not allow other “views”. LA Times won’t print my stuff, but local will.
What I wonder about is – aren’t they in the news business? Wouldn’t it sell more papers to print our stuff especially if they think it is contrary to their readers views? What do they have to gain?
Malcolm Turner writes: “Charlie Hebdo tells us so much about ourselves.”
It tells me absolutely nothing about myself.
“Hubris has taken over from fact.”
As you aptly demonstrate. How do you arrogate to yourself to tell me about me?
“Our denial is not corrupt it is the true way.”
How many of you are in there? 😉
Until the Islamist s stop killing each other, ( and any that disagree with there ignorance ) and realize that if Mohamed cut his finger, he would bleed just like the rest of us, 2015 is abort 500 years to advanced for them,,We in the west have equal rights for women !
Actually I have an idea for a piece of art.
We have all heard of Piss Christ, Jesus on the cross dumped into a large glass beaker of urine. That was certainly offensive to Christians. But nobody got killed over that.
What I would suggest is forming a large pile of human turds and placing a sign in front of it in Arabic (with an English translation) that says — “Is an image of him under that pile of turds or not? Only the artist knows for sure!”
Who is him? The artist does not state. Is there even an image under the turds or is it just turds all the through? This would be something for the Mullahs to mull over. There are harsh penalties for false accusations in Islamic law.
A lucky thing too may I add. I’m sure you know that Jesus is ALSO a prophet in Islam and the Virgin Mary is apparently revered. Wonders never cease.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/493436.stm
http://islam.about.com/cs/jesus/f/jesus_quran.htm
Much has been said about imagery in Islam. Here is another view.
Although this is a creative idea, it would only achieve its didactic purpose in minds that were already capable of subordinating their emotional reflexes to dispassionate reasoning. Those aren’t the ones we’re having trouble with!
Eugene WR Gallun “Piss Christ, Jesus on the cross dumped into a large glass beaker of urine. That was certainly offensive to Christians. But nobody got killed over that.”
Public funding of offensive stuff hopefully stopped by whatever means necessary, including defunding the National Endowment for the Arts. Some things are really brain-dead stupid, biting the hand that feeds you.
I think it is weird that some people in this thread are equating freedom of speech with the freedom to have any view expressed anywhere.
People do not have the right to come into my home uninvited and start talking about whatever the hell they like. But they still have freedom of speech – they can say what they like in the public street, unless it is threatening or intimidatory.
Likewise, if I ‘censor’ someone from posting on my web site, that is not denying them their freedom of speech – they can say what they like on their own web site.
Similarly, Fox News refusing to give me an hour-long spot to air my views does not restrict my freedom of speech.
If a bunch of scientists refuse to give you permission to address a conference, that is also not a denial of your freedom of speech, as you can still give your address at your own conference, or in the marketplace on a soap box.
And someone telling you that you are wrong and should not be allowed to speak at a particular university is likewise not a denial of your freedom of speech.
The fact that the Pentagon does not let anyone in off the street to talk to all and sundry in the building about their opposition to Obama’s or Bush’s military policies is also not a restriction on freedom of speech, as you still have the freedom to raise your opposition elsewhere.
Freedom of speech also is not freedom to speak without having your ideas mocked and ridiculed. Politeness would suggest playing the ball and not the person, but freedom of speech has nothing to do with politeness.
These are all reasons why I find the suggested equivalence between my side’s suggestion that the debate is settled and an opposition to free speech similar in some fashion to that of militant Islam’s opposition to free speech unconvincing.
“I find the suggested equivalence between my side’s suggestion that the debate is settled and an opposition to free speech similar in some fashion to that of militant Islam’s opposition to free speech unconvincing.”
_________________
Your side does far more than “suggest” that the debate is settled. Active suppression of debate which affects the lives of billions of people can in no measure be considered as support of free speech. Any rationalizations to the contrary serve only to advance the banners of tyrants.
david gould “I think it is weird that some people in this thread are equating freedom of speech with the freedom to have any view expressed anywhere.”
How weird, therefore, on a climate blog is to have someone expressing how weird this is? The short answer is “YMMV” — your mileage may vary!
“they can say what they like in the public street, unless it is threatening or intimidatory.”
That’s kind of the point. Climate scientists that go against the Consensus are threatened with loss of career and employment. That’s a dangerous threat to be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with forcing Fox to publish your speech.
You have provided a list of attributes of what you believe is “Free Speech” and of course everyone else is either wrong, or weird, or both.
It is sad that freedom of speech and expression of ideas have become either a death sentence or a dismissal from ones employ. In both religion and climate science, what ever happened to the ideals of the French revolution and the American constitution. The guiding lights of freedom and equality, the goals that should make all nations happy, wealthy and wise.
It is incumbent upon all of us to fight, such as we did in both the second world war and the fight against the evil of communist dictatorship in both evils that now confront the world.
Fighting the stupidity of the global warming camp is political, fighting the evil of Islamic terrorism is a horse of a different colour. Islam is political and only religious as a means to an end, those in islam who are religious and see Islam as a religion of peace are good people. Those that see Islam as a political and conquering force are our enemies, they only pretend to be religious.
Those in Islam that support this terror stuff when asked seems a rather large percentage, thus we have a problem.
People that I talk to randomly seem to believe the rubbish published in the newspapers and the stuff sprouted on the TV about global warming, thus we have a double whammy of brain washing.
The freedom of the internet can demolish the global warming crap, only severe political action followed by correct police action and the courts can stop terrorist action in free countries. I will not hold my breathe waiting.
Real religious believers of Islam preaching peace and good will to all, would be a start, but I would not hold my breathe on that on also.
The UN has brought the Western Elephant to its knees with the myth of “climate change”. And is now so very weak.
The Jackals and Hyenas, the Islamic State has sniffed an eminent death.
The real fight will be over the carcass.
This scrap is not over by a long shot.
6 million Islamists in France ? 3 million in the UK ? Who is invading who ?
3 million.. Officially.. I’d triple that number for the real head count.
Given the scepticism re global warming, I am surprised no one is sceptical of this event in Paris. A film which has been widely taken down, showing the French Policeman being shot in the head is still available and analysis shows that he was not shot and that it is likely the “terrorist” was shooting blanks.
For professionals it is very strange that these guys took along their Ids, let alone leave them in the getaway cars. No this event smacks of being a flase flag, by whom I would not like to speculate but who stands to gain?
Je ne suis pas Charlie!
Oh, dear.
Aha! We do agree. Not that that is sufficient for argument, but we have common ground – never thought we didn’t.
Amazing to me that his post has lasted so long. Must be relevant to science and knowledge.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lwyp–6UDlE/S84QYrNbYRI/AAAAAAAACtA/bIVq4U7S9UI/s1600/633673729262531831-TinfoilHat.jpg
Firing blanks? lol False flag, or rank amatures?
Chris, please take some medication and relax in a darkened room. Time is precious, don’t waste your life.
Malevolence hiding behind any kind of benevolent front is, in nearly every instance, the seeds of war. It goes like this: I don’t have what I think I deserve to have, therefore “x” is at fault and we, the “have nots”, need to rid ourselves of “x”.
This kind of thinking started WWI, WWII, and now radical Islam terrorism. It has also been the soil in which “anthropogenic global warming” was born. Secular fervor, religious fervor, Gaia fervor, or atheist fervor is often the dressing but not the bare truth of it.
The bare truth of it is that people who perceive that they “have not” are more often than not unwilling to change what they are doing in order to gain their life’s comforts (or rather, their idea of life’s comforts). Instead, they want everyone else to change what they are doing in order to bring to their reality, life’s comforts.
No, not about haves and have nots…more about the dehumanisation of people. Usually driven by religion, dogma! Thats why at least 1million people were literally butchered to death in Africa a few years back. Cut to death because of religious differences. Even in Muslim Africa!
[Tribal differences. .mod]
True, however, predominantly religion in the case I refer to.
Here we go again with that Meme. Hopefully in my lifetime someone with that memetic infection will quantify it with facts, or if not facts, at least some vaguely defensible specifics.
Then of course I’ll reply with Stalin’s millions, Pol Pot’s millions, Chairman Mao’s millions and you’ll go away and try again on some other blog.
And that is what literally scares the bejesus out of me. Not so much for my sake, but for the sake of the younger generations.
At such time that the exponential yearly increase of “feeders-at-the-public-trough” …….. far outnumber the producers of, as well as the quantity of said goods and services that they have become accustomed to being given to them “free of charge” to feed upon in order to sustain their life’s comforts, …… said “troughfeeders” will not be denied said “comforts” and will forcibly take said goods or services from whomever has what they want or desire.
The recent riots and looting in Ferguson, MO, is/was just a prelude of what the “have not” troughfeeders truly believe they have a right to take if they are ever deprived of their “freebies” and/or “entitlements”.
The French Revolution is a pretty good example. When the peasants revolted and took over government, they discovered PDQ they didn’t know how to govern and instead handed authority to Robespierre if I remember right and things went downhill fast. They went out to the farms and raided; leaving nothing for the next season. That started the Time of Troubles and paved the way for Napoleon Bonaparte to become dictator of France.
Thank you for thinking and in that for leading. I may not agree, but you are using your minds. I fear for all those who are not.
I have just come home from a peaceful rally in our provincial town in France. Around 2000 people (pop 9500) stood around the square and then, en masse, walked quietly around the outside of the old town. They came to show their belief in peace and acted in a peaceful way. This was repeated in every town in France.
Thank you. Wow.
For the only time in my life, I can say that I wish I were in France right now! Don’t really know how to offer my support from here in England. Everything seems inadequate.
Jail politicians who ignore climate science-Suzuki
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/Jail+politicians+ignore+climate+science+Suzuki/290513/story.html
I copied this awhile back
two big threats to free society is radical Islam and the alarmist side of climate science
Agreed, nc. Potential Climate Jihadis are in waiting. Just visit HuffPo, Media Matters, Gawker, etc., when the subject comes up, and witness the outright anger, stupidity, ignorance and closed-mindedness among supposedly “smart” people in the comments section. Re: the threats not a prediction, but a possibility down the road. At least “Occupy” style protests.
Mind your place, peasant. Lefties are oh so much smarter than you or I and their compassion is without equal…
Well, on this blog there might be a shared general opinion about global warming but on every other topic? Naw.
Every once in a while we need to remind ourselves what a diverse group comes here. If only climate debate was allowed on this blog we might begin to think of one another as faceless people all alike in other areas as well. The “explosion” above scatters and separates us and that is all for the good.
i find it amusing that Democrats believe in “cultural diversity” and “individual conformity”. (Though I have never seen the movie I will take a chance and say that such thinking might be the real villain being exposed and fought in “Divergent”.) That is sort of like saying — the clothes make the man.
Republicans seem to believe in “the melting pot” and “individual diversity”.Surprisingly those two ideas are not conflicting. Culture is like the climate — it is always changing. What you throw into a melting pot changes the contents of it. The clothes you wear today are not the clothes you will wear tomorrow (well, I have been wearing bluejeans almost every day for the last fifty years). The clothes don’t make the man.
Democrats want a tightly controlled society. All are equally free only when freedom no longer exists.
Republicans are extremely interested in expanding their own personal freedoms — and let the best man be the freest man — except for certain fundamental human rights which all share.
Oh, well. A wise man is an individual and a fool is a clone. No clones on this blog. (Except for the trolls.)
Oh, well. Done babbling I guess.
Eugene WR Gallun
Nice “babbling”.
I’m a Christian. While persecution has never stopped the spread of the Good News about Jesus Christ, I’d much rather live and be able to speak in a society where freedom to speak and believe are the laws of the land.
As I said some time ago, that means that I can tell you that Jesus is the Christ and that God raised him form the dead. You can tell tell me that he was just a nice Jewish boy who went into his Father’s business. You can even tell me he never lived. Neither one of us can call on the authorities to silence the other no matter how “offended” we might be.
Eugene,
All politics is about power, plain and simple. I don’t see that either Democrats or Republicans are significantly higher-minded about their aims than their opposition on that score. I have no love for either party, both in my eyes having fallen from past goodness. Perhaps that’s just the cynicism that comes with getting older. Due to my liberal views on most social issues, the Democrats scare me less, and that’s about as partisan as I get. As for fiscal policy, I firmly believe we live increasingly live in a democratic oligarchy where the choice at the voting booth is figuring out which special interests are likely to screw you the least. It’s almost enough to make an anarchist out of me, but I like paved roads and a strong military. I think I like healthcare too. So I patriotically pay my taxes full well knowing that no small portion of it goes to returning the favor of the campaign finance warchest.
So I end my babble with thanks for your babble, and a belated Happy New Year.
Eugene says “I will take a chance and say that such thinking might be the real villain being exposed and fought in ‘Divergent’.
It was pretty good, a bit formulaic teenager-saves-society (been a lot of that meme recently) but it seems to echo T.H. White’s “Once and Future King” when Arthur visits the ant colony and sees a sign, “”Everything not forbidden is compulsory”
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/09/everything_that_is_not_forbidd.html
This is as it must be in ant colonies and to a large extent non-voluntary socialism.
Eugene says, “(Though I have never seen the movie I will take a chance and say that such thinking might be the real villain being exposed and fought in “Divergent”.)”
Both Divergent and The Giver, and probably the Mazerunner (?), are based on Plato’s preferred caste system, Sparta. Every individual is assigned an identity and job, based on neuroscientific phrenology, and drugged and/or kept on a specific diet for good measure.
I appreciate that Josh stimulates such diverse and enlightening views (>250 comments).
I add that there should be no restriction in the open exchange (marketplace) of ideas; that is how I view the principle of free speech. Some followers of the prophet of Islam are restricting the open exchange of ideas about Islam by threatening death and killing people. Those kinds of followers of the prophet of Islam need to be eliminated with extreme prejudice by our authorities.
John
This is not about freedom of speech….it’s not about censorship
This is about some barbaric stone age religion that people are trying to force on the entire world…
Christians are running, Jews are running, atheists, women, all kinds of people are being driven out of their homes..running because if they get caught they will be killed
Where are the muslims running to?
That… is a very good question.
JIm, that’s only because 99% of the people where ISIS is are…..are you ready?…..MUSLIMS
The only reason their victims are 90% muslim…..is because they ran out of Christians and Jews
Yeah, it’s a little more subtle than that, and that’s the little detail
Turn ISIS loose in Mississippi…….and 90% of their victims would be Baptist
I was leaning more toward the philosophical.
What are they looking for, and what happens when they discover IT can’t be found ?
More of this childish behavior ?
We’ve got people that feed on this stuff.
u.k…..that post got confusing…..look down….the post was to Jim’s post below
It’s a little more subtle than that. As always the little details get buried in the small print. We all need to be sceptical about generalizations.
Some more.
look up ….LOL
Nigeria – 10 year Muslim old girl childs with bombs strapped to their bodies are sent by Muslim Bokos to blow up Muslim villagers. Surely that is Hell.
what you said reminds me of something said about Democrats who move from Blue states to Red states.
Those Democrats leave their Blue state because they are sick and tired of higher taxes and bloated government. They move to a Red state and proceed to again vote Democrat incapable of realizing they are going to turn their new Red state into a Blue state with all the same problems of their old state.
The Muslims who have left their former countries are doing the same thing in the West. What they flee, despotism, religious intolerance, arbitrary laws,etc, they are helping to recreate in their new countries.
Eugene WR Gallun
Though it is very likely only a funny accident, it seems strangely fitting to me that the color of islam is GREEN as well…
GREEN as for instance in the flag of Saudi Arabia where just last week a liberal Saudi blogger got the first 50 of 1000 whippings by official state justice only for using his fundamental human right of freedom of speech…
Or GREEN as in GREENPEACE, a radical, intolerant and not at all peace-full organization (see e.g. Golden Rice) with some even more extreme climate activists who would simply love to treat “evil” climate change deniers with lots of whippings too, just because they use their fundamental human right of freedom of speech as well…
And there is another odd similarity:
We are constantly told by do-gooders that “Islam is the religion of PEACE” just so as “AGW-Climatism is the religion of GREEN-PEACE” …
/Sarc – of course!
It is a religion of peace – the struggle is what Islam means.
Saudi is indeed a strange planet – many different standards i.e. foreign Muslims working in Kingdom from Philippines, have no rights and are equal to slaves.Send their money home, but rarely make enough to get back there themselves.
The terrorists are not Muslims, Islam must reform and identify who are and fix the inhuman rights. The West cannot fix this.
There is much propaganda there from, get this, the Ministry of Propaganda. It is in a white house.
Perhaps we need another acronym (please no more of those) FOS = freedom of speech.
Bubba Cow “Islam must reform”
It cannot. No mechanism exists for such a thing and by definition there can be no prophet after Mohammad, and only another prophet can undo what a prophet has done. Imam’s can re-interpret the words but the freedom to do so depends on varying degress of ambiguity in the original commands, which in some cases is pretty clear.
Islam can be abandoned, but I seriously doubt it can be “reformed”.
Consider Catholicism. It’s reformation is called “Lutheran” or “Anglican”. It cannot be “reformed” without destroying “Papal infallibility”; to even make the attempt is to yank the rug out from under the foundation of the religion and admit that any Pope right back to the first might well be “fallible” and then where are you?
So it is that if Imams start to say Mohammad is wrong then Islam comes crashing down and I reluctantly believe that Islam is what prevents the Middle East from being vastly worse than it already is; it would be strictly Malthusian in war and conquest, as is much of central Africa.
Is the right to free speech protected the same way as the right to murder? In a Communist Czechoslovakia, we were told: “You can say anything, but you have to be aware that there could be consequences”. Why not? You can murder anybody, but you have to be aware that there could be consequences.
Don’t know what you thought free speech would look like, but you are exercising it right now.
Thanks to all those who are speaking out in defense of free speech.
(Now, regarding Michael Mann’s lawsuits and the current state of “peer review”…..)
It’s difficult. “In my opinion” is not actionable but is deeply objectionable.