If by ‘we’ you mean you, Wow, Lionel and cCR, then I disagree.
Craig did make two ‘flippant’ comments, but you blokes are well into the double digits on ‘flippant comments’.
Craig was not ‘praising’ Christianity’ IMHO.
He was comparing development of societies.
I agree he was overly flippant about Islam a couple of times.
However, his basic point is valid.
Christianity is the ‘least guilty’ at blockading an open society where people like Otto are free to voice their opinions.
No one has claimed that any religion is purer than the driven snow.
‘Christianity is the ‘least guilty’ at blockading an open society ‘ – bullshit.
Your argument is like those of some revisionists who claim that acid rain was a hoax, ‘you never hear anything about that nowadays’, because they skip & deny the measures taken against it.
Open societies are the result of a bloody fight against christianity, not because of christianity. With its Inquisition, witch burnings (I would have been first of course), slavery, countless genocides on Jews and muslims, …
Christianity is the ‘least guilty’ at blockading an open society…
One word, ‘Inquisition’.
…where people like Otto are free to voice their opinions.
Why don’t you read Otto’s book to get the message intended not least about how we define belief and also understanding and the difference between them. It also provides the negation for those who try to claim that concern about AGW is a religion.
But here is more grist to the mill of the evils of religion , any and all religions.
Some interesting Trump snippets via the home page there. Trump having an ‘evangelical moment’ indeed, trumped up to wow the fundamentalists in the USA, having already stirred them up to hate any others using Nuremberg style stumping.
Imagine Boris trying to mediate between, or as things may well be with, Trump and Putin. The world is entering a very dangerous phase as far as humans and fellow traveller species are concerned.
“One word, ‘Inquisition’.”
Yeah. Well today I came across a piece of brilliant revisionism: witch burnings and Inquisitions were ‘actually remnants of paganism’… That is like that other meme of recent: national-socialisme was ‘extreme-left’ …
One word, ‘Inquisition’.”
Yeah. Well today I came across a piece of brilliant revisionism: witch burnings and Inquisition were ‘actually remnants of paganism’… That is like that other meme of recent: national-socialisme was ‘extreme-left’ …
(edited: lost the plural…)
How many times do you blokes need to be told that no one here has claimed that any brand or subset of any religion is innocent?
Craig compared the development of modern civilization.
Western democracies, as Jeff even points out re the US, are ‘unusually open’ societies.
No one is denying that Christianity is also fraught with a brutal history, including the inquisitions.
Your focus is entirely negative and therefore misses the actual context and point of Craig’s comments and mine.
Your focus is entirely negative and therefore misses the actual context and point of Craig’s comments and mine.
And you continue to remain in ignorance of the context under which I first introduced Otto which was WRT arguments within his his book. Instead of engaging with that you continued to throw up squirrels even if referencing Otto.
Therefore your comments are out of context from the start and by hitching your skirt to Craig’s later posts you continue to evade the initial suggestion for study and comment WRT Otto’s book discussed here.
Fellas, your favorite blogger Steven G (Tony Heller) has given a presentation I’m sure you will appreciate:
Hitch my skirt??????
Haha haha 🙂
I don’t have a problem with Otto, his book or his blog.
Which part of that are you missing Lionel?
You don’t need to defend him as no one criticised Otto.
I think you might need some help.”
Make believe worlds where whether or not you asked a question has bugger all to do with Lionel’s introduction of Otto?
Sorry, I don’t want help to understand how your brain “works”.
If by ‘we’ you mean you, Wow, Lionel and cCR, then I disagree.”
What do you mean “disagree”? That was four people, and the inclusive term for multiple people is “We”, therefore there’s nothing to disagree.
“Craig did make two ‘flippant’ comments”
Then you DO agree with what jeff said.
“but you blokes are well into the double digits on ‘flippant comments’.”
Well, given that you appear to think “flippant” means “I disagree with them”, it appears as if you disagree with the meaning of words.
“No one has claimed that any religion is purer than the driven snow.”
No one has accused anyone of claiming that some religion is purer than the driven snow.
“Craig was not ‘praising’ Christianity’ IMHO.”
Given that you think praising christianity for being more moderate as you understand it to be in your secular society isn’t praising christianity, the fact that craig is praising it for being the “bedrock cause” of our secular western democracy is yet another example of you getting definitions wrong.
” …where people like Otto are free to voice their opinions.”
IN A SECULAR SOCIETY.
Not “christian”, where he would have been burned at the stake.
“How many times do you blokes need to be told that no one here has claimed that any brand or subset of any religion is innocent?”
How many times are you going to pretend you’re defending against a claim NEVER ONCE MADE???
“Craig compared the development of modern civilization.”
Read it again.
He claims it’s because of christianity modern civilisation developed.
Pure, unadulterated willful blindness.
“No one is denying that Christianity is also fraught with a brutal history, including the inquisitions.”
Craig and you never concede that they are reasons why modern society was not built on “Christian Values”.
Moreover, NEITHER OF YOU have EVER proposed WHAT “Christian Values” modern democracy is built on.
Instead of bleating that you’ve never said what you’ve never been accused of saying, how about answering what you are charged with instead???
Read Craig’s comment @#51 previous page.
He proposes what Christian Values modern democracy is built on.
Perhaps you need to look up the definition of ‘flippant’?
“Christian Values modern democracy is built on”
Stu2 gets funnier. What modern democracies are we talking about Stu? Because pretty well all of em’ in the developed world are actually in thrall to corporations. The ruling elites loathe true democracy because it puts power into the hands of the general public, the ‘rabble’ who would, if they could, create more egalitarian societies. Adam Smith was one of the first to observe how those in power with wealth exhibited what he called the ‘vile maxim’; all for ourselves and nothing for everybody else.
The bottom line in this discussion is that you really don’t have much of a clue what’s going on in the world. You’ve got your five cents worth from your Sky News and that’s it. I knew I was in trouble with your views months back when you linked to that silly interview with the reformed jihadist. It was kindergarten level discourse symptomatic of our mind-numbing corporate media. Keep the masses dumbed down and make them think that the world is black and white; the civilized ‘us’ versus the savage ‘them’. That’s why debating you is a waste of time. You begin this discussion with a limited mind set.
I want to thank Olaus for putting up the hilarious Heller/Goddard video. It cracked me up when he said, There has been little or no warming since the 1940s”.
Comedy gold. Its funny how know-nothings witn absolutely no relevant qualifications speak as if they are sages of wisdom. Olaus is always blathering on about illusory (or what he claims are illusory) corporate conspiracies and then he puts up this bullshit, in which NOAA, NASA, The Met Office and every major meteorological/scientific organization must be involved in the mother of all conspiracies.
One little point blows Heller/Goddard out of the water. And that is biotic responses to climate change. Nature does not lie; it just responds. And what we have is a huge data set showing species of plants and animals moving to higher latitudes, higher elevations, altering various aspects of their life cycles such as seasonal phenology or reproduction to earlier times of the year etc. Why are they doing this? because they just want to adjust their ranges? For fun? Just for the sake of it?
Since Heller/Goddard can’t tell a hippo from a dung beetle this sails clearly over his head. Of course its warmed signifciantly since the 1940s – indeed since the 1980s. That’s why listening to this clown spew his crapola is a total waste of time.
Oh Pointless has clearly not seen this:
I spend my time writing about the economy, but the climate data hits me right in the gut,
and pointless one should check out what has happened to Greenland ice in just the last three years and what happened during this July.
Duff and Rednoise are conspicuous by their absence.
And there you have it.
Jeff believes we’re doomed and all off to hell in a handbasket because of things like ‘vile maxim’, corporate conspiracies, sky news (???) & etc and that nature just responds.
Anyone who dares to question Jeff’s opinions, even if they’re well educated and might even be widely respected in academia, is still clueless about what’s really going on in the world.
Overstating the worst case scenario is political gibberish and has nothing to do with nature.
‘Nature’ doesn’t care, nor does ‘nature’make decisions based on the human concept of ‘fun’.
Stu2, being educated is not a pretty requisite for knowledge. The vile maxim alluded to by Adam Smith is as relevant today in describing the profit driven imperative of corporations as it was when Smith was describing rich British merchants. You clearly have limited knowledge of the link between our current dominant political-economic system, environment destruction and poverty. That’s your problem. You can’t debate even the basics. I can easily see from the content of your posts that your understanding of the world is very shallow.
I meant ‘pre-requisite’; blame my smart phone for the incorrect word.
BTW Stu, what academics are you speaking about who disagree with me? YOU!? Don’t make me laugh.
And in #21 Stu2 descends to Trump level simplistic stupidity and he wibbles about being called such as Stupid. I’ll bet Stupid has not read ‘The Wealth of Nations’.
Trump level is an upgrade for StuPid, Lionel.
Read Craig’s comment @#51 previous page.”
I did, StuPid. Read your comment #8 where you asked idiotic rhetorical questions about Otto. How does #51 existing make your #8 nonexistent???
“Perhaps you need to look up the definition of ‘flippant’?”
I did. Years ago. You need to work on the ACTUAL dictionary definition, StuPid. Not your Humpty-Dumpty version.
Stu2 gets funnier. What modern democracies are we talking about Stu?
Hell, what Christian Values?
“Christianity is a religion of Western Europe,” Not true, and not a “Value”, let alone “Christian”.
“and in practical terms bears little resemblannce with the middle-eastern religions.” Isn’t a “Value” either.
“Take the christian “prophet/god” – Jesus ” Not a “Value”.
“he was a social reformer who advocated egalitarianism, socialism, and peaceful resolution to conflicts.” Not a “Value”, and existed for mohammed too.
“In order – washing the feet of Mary Magdalene” Not a “Value”, and since Mags is well dead, definitely not one we can practice today. Also note that this is NOT “Western”, but middle east. You know, where the frigging thing is set.
, “easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than enter the kingdom of god”, Not a “Value” of the West, definitely. And not one of Christianity. Many religions also have similar sayings. Is Western Democracy Shinto???
“and “turn the other cheek.” We don’t do that in the West.
“He advocated the Golden Rule.² Which existed a thousand years before. In what way is that in any way “Christian Values”??? FFS, *ATHEISTS* get the same damned rule, merely from teleological positivism.
“Contrast this with Mohammed – a bandit who justified his depredations on the grounds that his victims believed in the wrong god,”
Contrast with JC who came with the Sword and Fire.
Very good Wow.
You’ve copy/pasted the proposed values.
‘Nature’ does not simply respond, nor does ‘Nature’ give 2 hoots about the human concept of ‘fun’.
You have no practical solutions to manage your ‘he’ll in a handbasket’ propositions, you only over state the worst case scenario amidst a plethora of political gibberish.
‘Nature’ doesn’t give 2 hoots about your politics either.
As always, I was writing above Stu2’s little pin-sized head. What a simpleton.
‘Nature responds’ is a euphemism for individuals, populations, species, communities and ecosystems elucidating ecophysiological responses to a changes in abiotic and biotic conditions and/or stresses. Given that your understanding of the field of population ecology is nil or very close to it, I should have expected that you would not understand my response to the latest bile spewed out by Olaus and one of his heroes, Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard. You are such a puerile nitwit Stu2 that you think by response I intimated some form of emotional condition. You forget that I am indeed a scientist with a lenghty publication list and over 5000 citations. I don’t answer the kindergarten level brigade deniers like you apparently do who try and drag discussions to the lowest common denominator. Heller, like most of the so-called prominent deniers, has little or no relevant expertise. Even the clowns you cite here occasionally for the most part have little in the way of publications and citations. They are only know because as AGW deniers they are among the very few with ANY scientific background and as such are given veritable megaphones by the well-funded and organized climate change denial lobby.
As for nature not giving a hoot about global politics, there you go again, trying to smear an entire field with an anthropogenic veneer. Nature may not ‘give a hoot’ emotionally but given the rapacious costs of largely unregulated capitalism across the biosphere, we can certainly say that natural systems are being pushed towards the brink beyond which many systems will be unable to sustain themselves and. ultimately, us. A very recent paper in Science shows unambiguously that biodiversity has been reduced to levels barely able to maintain viable ecosystem functioning and the delivery of vital ecosystem services, and that further erosion of diversity will (indeed is) have very serious repercussions.
Of course, again this is all over your head. As I said before, why you even try and debate on anything is beyond me. You stink.
Just alarmist, political gibberish..
‘why you even try and debate on anything’ – he doesn’t. Answers with silly remarks and some word salad as in #28.
Stu2 must be some relinut, immersed into personifying things like nature and thus so totally no able to parse what someone could mean by ‘nature responds’.
Stu2 wants solutions. Then read the latest book by Chris Hedges, ‘Wages of Rebellion’. The solution is simple. We need a revolution to replace the rapacious Washington Consensus with something approaching an egalitarian system of governance. The current system is killing the planet, driving further inequality and is unsustainable. Its telling that those pushing for ‘Charters of the Forest’ and respect for natural systems are mostly the poor or indigenous peoples. The rich ruling elites are content to keep sucking the planet dry.
As for ‘gibberish’, that’s Stu2s euphemism for politics and economics that he doesn’t understand. Nothing I write about global politics is really at all controversial, but it sure will be to those drip-fed corporate bullshit their entire lives. Stu2’s occasional forays into this are reveal where he gets the bulk of his ‘news’ from. Let’s just say that I am infinitely better read and well informed than he is and leave it at that.
Just alarmist, political gibberish..”
Don’t worry, Stupid, we’re used to that from you.
“As for nature not giving a hoot about global politics, there you go again, trying to smear an entire field with an anthropogenic veneer.”
Hell, what’s “nature doesn’t give a hoot about global politics” supposed to mean? Nature doesn’t give a hoot about whether it gives a hoot, and politics likewise.
Nuclear fusion doesn’t give a hoot about global politics either, but a global thermonuclear war started by some tinpot state with a nuclear weapon stash is still caused by global politics.
All we get from StuPid is, obviously enough, stupidity. Words signifying nothing, about which StuPid complains incessantly if we try to find out what might usefully be made from the pablum of his comments.
“Very good Wow.
You’ve copy/pasted the proposed values.”
Very Stupid, StuPid. You haven’t read them. You didn’t even read my post about them on that page, where I pointed out that they lacked “Values” listed, never mind “christian”ness. They aren’t “Christian Values”. 80% of them AREN’T EVEN VALUES, the remainder being neither christian only values, none of them explain how they “cause” our western secular democracy.
Yet reality shows quite clearly it came as an outgrowth of the Age of Enlightenment where atheists looked at reality and decided that religion was an anathema to any sane and humane state.
And what we have is where secularism resides (even in the Middle East: Saddam was a secular state and he treated the minorities no worse than the USA treated theirs or the UK treated the Irish), we have stable democracy for all, and where we have religious states INCLUDING CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS COUNTRIES that treat people not of the “True Faith” as unhuman and commit atrocities freely under the idiotic assumption that since it’s “the true religion”, they are “doing the right thing”.
Western democracy, even when it’s not in the West, is due to atheism, not christianity.
Reality check for 2Stupid and note Jeff does understand what the answer is as he had repeatedly made clear, clear to anybody with the requisite knowledge and thinking skills.
If you find it hard to read, look up post #63 on the previous page, StuPid.
Where is the evidence that a social revolution is beneficial to the planet?
Also, where is the evidence that ‘the Washington Consensus’ is some deep, dark, rapacious conspiracy?
Williamson has written extensively on this topic.
Stu2, Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky have also written extensively about the ‘Washington Consensus’. There’s nothing really conspiratorial about it; its simply a fact that since the 1980s in particular (thanks to Reagan and Thatcher) we’ve witnessed mass deregulation of economies aimed at allowing banks and corporations to increase profits and to be less constrained by government. Corporations now effectively determine US policy and free trade agreements (NAFTA, TTIP, TPP) are not about free trade or trade at all but about forcing investor’s rights onto countries in Asia and Europe.
A social revolution based on creating social justice across the globe as well as internalizing the costs of environmental damage into price-cost scenarios is the only chance our species has of avoiding catastrophe. We know that the current dominant model is pushing natrual systems towards the brink but those who want to retain the current model of wealth concentration and the ‘vile maxim’ Smith referred to don’t care. The are programmed to think in terms of short term agendas and not longer term decay.
As for Williamson, he’s a right wing economist who championed the WC. Noam Chomsky pretty well deconstructs the WC in this 1999 essay:
And yet one can just as easily find links such as these:
And of course if I wanted to source info about Agenda 21, I would also find a whole heap of information, including those who claim it is some type of deep, dark, rapacious conspiracy would I not?
‘Where is the evidence that a social revolution is beneficial to the planet?’
Who cares for the planet. It is all about US, homo sapiens.
But I, too, have my doubts, of course. E.g. about the process of social revolution that lead to voting rights for Stupids2.
Williamson is a right wing economist who works for a corporate funded right wing think tank. The Washington Consensus (whose consensus? Corporate and political classes in Washington and its proxies) is pretty well dead anyway, at least in South America where the IMF and World Bank have been sent packing.
And there’s no conspiracy behind nakedly predatory corporate activities, the governments they own and the destruction that occurs in their wake. NAFTA was part of the WC. TTOP and TPP – if they are really ever ratified – will be extensions of the WC. That most of the world does not want the WC doesn’t matter so long as the rich and privileged groups want it.
Stu2 is stupid, that is for sure. He’ll buy into anything his corporate-state media tells him.
BTW, the Wiki link stupid put up here is hilarious. The opening line, that the WC is “a set of 10 economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the “standard” reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.–based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the US Treasury Department” is both ironic and funny. One woudl think that Washington planners and corporation aim t reduce poverty and create more egalitarian societies. Read what former economic hit man John Perkins has to say about the WC and the methods used to coerce poor nations into accepting the terms of the WC and the picture becomes clear. That stupid would paste any of this bullshit up here shows how dumbed down he is.
None of these institutions have worked to alleviate poverty. Instead, the first two function as proxies for the third, and through structural adjustment policies and austerity programs they have driven massive poverty and wealth concentration throughout the places they have operated. Williamson’s WC is similar to the programs pushed by the Chicago Boys (Friedman, Hayak etc) in ostensible dictatorships in South America (and in eastern Europe later through Sachs) involving shock therapy concomitant with deregulation, spending cuts on programs that benefit the poor and the environment, and wealth concentration although the argument, never justified, is that economies under shock therapy eventually ‘raise all boats’ (it turns out that the only boats ‘ raised’ are yachts).
Bolivia was one of the experiments of the WC that failed miserably, with companies like Bechtel fleeing with their tail tucked firmly between their legs.
I won’t waste any more time on a person who essentially believes any crap that the mainstream media sticks in front of his face.
On, and finally I forgot to describe what should be patently obvious by now: the real aim of the WC. That is to repatriate wealth and resources from the LDC to the DC of the north. George Kennan, a senior US planner under Truman essentially said what the US should do in 1948 and that is to ‘maintain a disparity in wealth’ between the poor nations and the United States. To do that he went on to say that the US should ‘ignore noble ideas such as democracy promotion and altruism and thin in straight power concepts’. This was in 1948; essentially a liberal, Kennan was fired for being too far to the left in 1951. In 2004, aged almost 100 but still well respected in policy circles, Kennan said that he was worried about developments in South America (i.e. the eviction of the IMF and WB from South America and a move towards more leftist governments) because, as he said, ‘it threatened’ the control and supply or our resources. ‘Our’ is the operative word; the resources and wealth of these nations are ‘ours’, meaning those of US investors, even though they happen to lie in the lands of other countries. In this vein the aims of the WC become clear: the US owns the world by right; they have the right therefore to oppose any measures countries may take to control their own resources and be in charge of their own internal decision making processes. I’ve read enough planning documents to know that the real threat to US corporations and elites is independent nationalism. The WC was devised essentially to ensure that the US was able to keep its thumb on other countries whose wealth they want to control.
Read some declassified state planning documents some time stupid, as well as the neocon PNAC manifesto and the real agendas become patently clear.
“Where is the evidence that a social revolution is beneficial to the planet?”
The removal of the Feudal System isn’t evidence for that?!?!?
Which feudal system are you referring to Wow?
The feudal system that we had. You DID do history, didn’t you, Stupid? Or were you home”Schooled”?
What were the drawbacks of the feudal system, what kind of social revolution ended it, what were the effects of the change on people’s lives, and what were the benefits ensuing from the change?
Having elucidated this detail, now explain how this example of history applies to the marxist ideal of tearing down society in order to replace it with a supreme soviet whose authority will be used to ensure everybody’s thoughts are in-line with “correct” political thinking?
Specifically, please enunciate the benefits we will enjoy once we are legally obliged to refrain from dissent against, for example, the assertion that multiculturalism is a good thing.
“What were the drawbacks of the feudal system”
Rampant poverty, lawlessness. But maybe you can describe the bit of it that makes it a good system? Of course, if this were acceptable, then “failed” communism can also be claimed good by a similar process.
Maybe you can tell us if it was so good why it is no longer in the world?
“what kind of social revolution ended it”
Emancipation of serfs from property status. Duh.
Apparently YOU didn’t do history.
“how explain how this example of history applies to the marxist ideal of tearing down society in order to replace it with a supreme soviet ”
Please explain why you thought pulling this turd of a theory from your own anus would constitute an actual reality? Marxist ideal is NOT that, retard.
PLEASE stop listening to 1960s US anti-communist propaganda. It’s hella old and hella wrong.
“please enunciate the benefits we will enjoy once we are legally obliged to refrain from dissent against…”
Please enunciate where you pulled THIS one from, if not from the same cloacal opening as the previous turditious exposition of yours, and also what benefits we enjoy from the dissent you claim in your ignorance and paranoia.
New comments have been disabled.
Well, scienceblogs is shutting down at the end of the month. I don’t want all the…
Happy new year!