Stupid Hippie Tricks

I know this is going to shock you all, but I’m going to have to pick on my patchoulied brethren here for a sec.

Why?

Because they’re completely fucking clownshoes, that’s why.

From the London Times:

POLICE have warned fish farmers to increase their security after 15,000 halibut were released from their cages in an attack believed to have been carried out by animal rights activists.

Thousands of dead fish are being washed up along the west coast of Scotland after the raid at Kames Marine Fish Farm, near Oban. The perpetrators are thought to have attacked last week. Detectives believe that the attack could be linked to a spate of other farm attacks throughout the country. The letters ALF (Animal Liberation Front) were spray-painted near by.

The loss is estimated to have cost the fish farm at least £500,000 as boats, cranes and offices were also vandalised. The halibut died from starvation or getting caught in seaweed. They were also being eaten by herring gulls and otters.

Yay for animal rights! Mother Nature’s gentle creatures are now free, free and seriously fucking dead. By kelp. That’s pretty much the shittiest way to go if you’re a fish, gotta be. And they can thank the flower children Animal Liberation Front nimrods for that. Meanwhile, because of the reduced supply of farmed fish, this means a greater incentive to overfish waters even more to meet demand, causing more environmental devastation.

So yeah, Animal Liberation Front? Go fuck a sunset, and leave ecology to the kinds of folks who didn’t get their ideals off of Saturday morning cartoons.

99 Comments
  1. Animal Liberation Front is a violent organization; not a “hippy” one. Your right-wing bias is beginning to make me consider whether or not I should just skip all posts made by “Stuart Richards” on my favorite blog.

    You point out a stupid “liberaton” attempt by violent radicals and blame the entire left for it. And you also use it to discredit the notion of “animal rights” – the absence of which is a major hole in libertarian philosophy.

    Animals have the right to live natural lives and to be treated humanely. In an anarchist society, I would personally enforce those rights with my gun. In a legalistic society, those rights should be protected by law. I don’t know if halibut are even capable of being mistreated, but living things are not property in the same sense that shoes are. “Property rights” cannot be used as an axiom to defend to most eggregious injustices (i.e. slavery, as it was with the “states rights” advocates of the past).

  2. Oh good grief… I was making a joke.

    I get called a hippie on here so much, dude, so I figured it’d be humorous.

    Apparently humor is collectivist tripe. :\

  3. U_A — does microbial life have rights too? How about plants?

    Should we all become Theravedic monks?

    “Animal Rights” has little inherently to do with libertarianism and is no more a gaping hole than is libertarianism’s lack of reference to originations of morality.

  4. Libertarians For No Animal Rights (LFNAR) will wear chicken suits and protest the idea that animals should not be starved, beaten, denied of water, tortured, etc.

    Becuase: It’s More Libertarian to Be Cruel.©

    How about just being kind to animals, even if their fate is food or fodder? Seems to me that would do the trick irrespective of political views.

    I dont see any difference between the Animal Liberation Front and the “libertarians” who say owners have the right to torture and starve their animals. Flip side of the same coin, I think.

    Must every impulse on any side of an issue be an extreme reaction? Where did the common sense go?

  5. It’s funny how being honest enough to call a racist a racist can earn someone a reputation for calling a (presumed) non-racist a racsit. I guess people who are offended by the notion that racism and racists exist are either a) racists themselves, or b) so entirely ignorant of and insensitve to the existence of racism that they’re probably worse than actual racists.

    It’s also funny how I have developed the reputation of bringing race into every thread – when it is actually my detractors who race-bait me into defending my anti-racism in threads that have nothing to do with race.

    This posting was just a classic example of the right-wing leanings of self-described libertarians. We demonize enviornmentalists just as we do every other Democratic voting bloc to our own peril. The LP has unquestioanbly the most radically pro-environment platform of all political parties, excluding the omission of an animal rights (freedom from torture, captive starvation) plank. Why hate environmentalists?

  6. UA, that was a great post. I agree that animals are not property. In response to IanC’s post, I would add the word “sentient”. I don’t believe all animals have rights, only sentient ones. I could be mistaken, but I don’t think insects are sentient, but fish are. In regard to IanC’s comment “what about plants”, that’s such an old pathetic comment to discredit animal rights it’s not worth a reply.

    I notice many libertarians make the same stereotypical mistakes that their opponents make. That is, they see a small percentage of a group doing something wrong, and then they equate that to the entire group. For example, only a very, very small percentage of PETA members ever damage property.

    Just like some people mistakenly think libertarians are a bunch of drug addicted anarchists, some libertarians think all animal rights activists are violent radicals. I’m a animal rights supporting libertarian and don’t condone violence in any form, except in self-defense.

  7. UA, I think most libertarians hate environmentalists because they’d rather see large corporations owning every square inch of the planet, and won’t be satisfied until every last tree is cut down and turned into paper and lumber, and we all have to walk around in gas masks because the air is unbreathable.

  8. Best way to preserve just about any species, animal or plant is to find a way to make it commercial and grow it on a farm in a controled environment.

    Money is a powerful motivator.

  9. “Although, this site has in my experience been better in this respect (i.e. not being totally right-wing) than most libertarian sites I’ve seen.”

    I agree and I’ll go a step further: Hammer of Truth is THE BEST site in this regard (excluding the one man show known as [email protected]).

    Corporations are artificial constructs of the state. Corporate property can only be enforced by coercion or the police powers of the state. Corporatism = statism. And when a group of individuals seek the state’s assistance to charter a corporation, they surrender all rights to be free of regulation.

    Many “libertarians” want only enough government to make sure that the thugs of the states defend their “rights” with force – not anybody else’s.

  10. UA, you’ve earned the facetious jabs like mine above that you so predictably overreact to. But, if you were truly honest about calling people racist, you’d bring something tangible to back it up with. For example, your claim that Lew Rockwell is an “obvious racist” was supported by nothing more than the fact that he occasionally speaks of the notion of “states rights”. Just because some people in the past have used that as cover for their racist beliefs doesn’t mean that others cannot possibly be using it in the 10th Amendment sense.

    But, back to the main topic, it seemed clear to me that Stuart’s comments were aimed directly at the “violent radicals” who committed the act, not the entire left nor entire environmentalist community.

  11. Leroy — there are still those whom argue for *plant’s rights* — most specifically objecting on the basis that “trees can feel pain too.”

    If they are automatically invalid, then the claim of absolutism is obviated, leaving the remainder to a status of subjective/relative status.

    Re: Environmentalism & Libertarianism:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14936341/

    Our best bet is to use examples of the private industry doing so (much like the advances in logging industry that make it MORE economically viable to NOT deforest than to practice strip-mining as it were.)… to demonstrate to environmentalists that all government can do is befuddle the issue and point out that as technology progresses, the ecological impact of individual manufactories becomes progressively LESS.

    This is my perspective, and *I* consider myself an environmentalist libertarian.

  12. Corporations are artificial constructs of the state. Corporate property can only be enforced by coercion or the police powers of the state. Corporatism = statism. And when a group of individuals seek the state’s assistance to charter a corporation, they surrender all rights to be free of regulation.

    True. This is why, until we get rid of coercive taxation and corporate personhood/limited liability completely, corporate taxes are not as objectionable as taxes on individuals and truly private businesses.

    Many “libertarians” want only enough government to make sure that the thugs of the states defend their “rights” with force – not anybody else’s.

    Yes. There’s definitely a counterproductive tilt to the right. I hope we nominate Steve Kubby for President in 2008 to help change that.

    http://kubby.com/

    Stanhope would also be good.

    http://www.myspace.com/stanhope08

  13. Robert:

    How do you account for Lew’s constant association with and hosting of the likes of Sam Francis and VDare?

    Or, how about the article defending the police beating of Rodney King?

    See also

    http://radgeek.com/elsewhere/2006/06/22/the_antifederal

    http://radgeek.com/elsewhere/2005/07/13/ls_miserable_li_2

    http://radgeek.com/elsewhere/2005/07/12/ls_miserable_li

    http://radgeek.com/elsewhere/2004/11/02/while_were_on_t_1

    http://radgeek.com/elsewhere/2004/09/11/akkkghh_screech

  14. Robert,

    I’ve had run ins with 3 different cats since 2003 that claimed so. One was on the old Badnarik for President blog. One was a commenter on HoT, many posts ago, maybe a year? Not sure. Search if ye care to find. All of them made me sick to my stomach to think how twisted they were. The guy on Badnarik really got to me. He wasnt kidding, dead serious.

  15. Mayer: Come on, now. Does Lew Rockwell even deny that he is a racist? Google “Lew Rockwell” and “racist” so I don’t have to explain myself here. It’s been done – many times. I pretty much thought it was an accepted fact.

    And as for Mr. Richards talking “only about violent radicals.” Hmm… So Mr. Richards considered “violent radicals” to be his “patchoulied brethren?” And when he says “hippy” he obviously only means “violent radicals” not an entire class of people, I guess. My mistake.

    Mr. Cannoli: You and I are basically of like minds. I hope that profession does not offend you, as I have become a parriah of HoT. It is a role that I do not mind, though.

  16. I would also like to point out to HoT admins before I am banned for being a race-mongering troll that I DID NOT BRING UP THE SUBJECT OF RACE IN THIS THREAD. Thank you.

  17. All right, I’ve got to lay down some serious smack in this thread right now.

    While I did come to the LP from the Republican Party a very long time ago, I’ve since become more of a left-libertarian than anything. Would a Republitarian be suggesting things like this?

    No, UA, the difference between me and you is I can make a joke, and laugh at it, and I can laugh at myself. You take everything so fucking seriously. Put down the fucking philosophy book for half a second and learn to laugh.

    Calling them hippies? Like it or not, stereotypes are funny. Why do you think two libertarians have been able to make a show about elementary schoolers telling dirty jokes for ten years? And if anything, I was stereotyping myself-I get comments about my long hair and being a hippie so much, why not? It’s funny, and I can laugh at myself.

  18. Second off, where did I EVER make the claim that all hippies were violent? Nowhere, you just assumed. However, claiming that none of them were is a load of shit-just look at all the terrorism that happened in the 60’s and 70’s. At least a very small minority of hippies were, indeed, violent. Most weren’t, you’re right.

    However, hippies have a reputation for being environmentalists, would you not agree? Therefore, my making a joke about a group of counterproductive environmentalists by referencing hippies is not an anti-hippie slur, it’s just funny. Or it’s supposed to be, when Vulcans people don’t stick a shitload of words in my mouth.

    Now, let’s move on to the words you did, in fact, stick in my mouth, shall we? You do this so often and it’s bullshit, and I’m not even sure you realize that you do it.

  19. You point out a stupid “liberaton” attempt by violent radicals and blame the entire left for it. And you also use it to discredit the notion of “animal rights” – the absence of which is a major hole in libertarian philosophy.

    Please point out where I blame the entire left. Also, please point out where I discredit the notion of animal rights. As I see it, I just derided this particular example.

    Animals have the right to live natural lives and to be treated humanely.

    Show me an example where I asserted otherwise, either in this thread or elsewhere.

    We demonize enviornmentalists just as we do every other Democratic voting bloc to our own peril.

    Where did I demonize environmentalists? Point it out. As it looks on my post, I was defending the environment against the actions of these morons.

  20. And as for Mr. Richards talking “only about violent radicals.” Hmm”¦ So Mr. Richards considered “violent radicals” to be his “patchoulied brethren?” And when he says “hippy” he obviously only means “violent radicals” not an entire class of people, I guess. My mistake.

    Jesus fuck, dude, do they have humor on your homeworld or what?

    So at any rate, it’s time for you to put up or shut up. Show me where I said any of those things you asserted me to have said, or retract your statements, or lose the rest of your credibility.

    I did actually respect your insight until you started flinging all this crap at me.

  21. In a sense any one who advoates socialist policies of any sort are by definition advocating violence. So in a sense ALL socalist (no matter if they are of the hippy kind or not) are advocates of violence. I guess you can split hairs and claim their are differneces between policy adovcation (the violence and the use of immidete violence. However, the end results are the same, intiating the use of force is immoral and destrucitve

  22. In regards to animal rights. WTF? yes as a person I beilve you should treat animals well, and that if you eat them/ experiment on them you try to do so in as humane as way as possiable. I would not want to pass laws on the issue though. Medical advancement is largely based on animal expermentaion. Ask anyone with diabeties. Doesn’t insalin (christ my spelling sux) origanlly come from animals? Most organ transplant advances would not have happened if doctors had not had animals at thier disposal

    I also have the question for animals rights adovates. By what standard do animals have a right not to be harmed? Becasue they can feel pain? Pain is response to destructive/harmful outside/inside sources. yes even plants react to harm, as well as insects, and micro organisms. They react to “pain” on some level. if you use the standard that they are seinitent that leads to more problems. Define senntient. How do we detrimene which organisms are sentient? Do we do experiments/test to find ou

  23. UA: “Does Lew Rockwell even deny that he is a racist?”

    I don’t know – has he ever been asked the question? I don’t know Lew personally, but I’ve read tons of stuff on his site over the past 5+ years and have yet to come across a single thing that I felt was racist, but then, maybe my racism detector isn’t as sensitively tweaked as some.

    As for Googling, you can find just about any opinion of anyone that way. I’m sure I’d find an unlimited number of hits lionizing Abe Lincoln, yet I disagree with the popular opinion of him. Ironically, when I do run the search, among the first results is an openly racist site (Vanguard News Network) bashing Rockwell! And of course some links from well-known LRC foe, Tom Palmer.

    In any case, what I do know is that Lew Rockwell has consistently put out high quality and thoroughly libertarian material, so until I come across a more compelling case than I’ve seen thus far, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt.

  24. Paulie, Sam Francis is a name I’ve heard a few times, but that’s about it. As for VDare, I do recall seeing an occasional LRC link to their articles (not recently), but again, nothing I ever read struck me as being racist. Guilt by association?

    I perused the RadGeek links you provided and, quite frankly, didn’t find them very convincing at all. It’s somewhat ironic that this person was including Tom DiLorenzo in these criticisms; I distinctly remember a number of DiLorenzo writings where he demonstrates and denounces Lincoln’s racist sentiments.

    Rodney King… I’ll counter with this: http://tinyurl.com/zugfw.

    Granted, Lew comes to a bizarre conclusion here and this is one of the few times where I don’t see eye-to-eye with him. Nevertheless, how exactly is it racist? There’s no mention of race whatsoever. Furthermore, you could easily replace King with some white beating victim and the gist of the article remains unchanged. Any racist motive on his part is purely speculative.

  25. The only ones who say that VDare is racist is the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they’re rather racist hypocritical greedy fuckers themselves.

  26. Stuart – I do not know of what you speak. As for pointing out where you said what I said you said – it’s right in your post.

    “but I’m going to have to pick on my patchoulied brethren here for a sec.”

    Does this refer to “violent radicals” (if so, they are your brethren?) or to the left as a whole? Either way, my point stands.

    I guess it could be said that the Weather Underground were hippies. That said, I don’t think it is fair to call the ALF a “hippy” organization. It is an idiotic, terrorist organization.

    I did not assert that you were against the right of animals to live “natural,” humane lives. I was making a point that many libertarians are against that notion.

    As for the rest; my post was not intended to be an indictment against your character. I would respectuflly like to take back any crap I mistakenly flinged at you. However, I did not know you were a former Repub, but I would like to say that it is somewhat evident in your tenor.

    good day

  27. As for pointing out where you said what I said you said – it’s right in your post.

    “but I’m going to have to pick on my patchoulied brethren here for a sec.”

    Does this refer to “violent radicals” (if so, they are your brethren?) or to the left as a whole? Either way, my point stands.

    If I wasn’t being facetious, you might have a point here.

  28. I think one of the reasons they (ALF) garnerd such negative criticism from Stuart was because they did somethng which probably resulted in the painful death of most of the fish.

    Also the side effect is that the supply for fish will go down and the demand will go up. The possible result, MORE OVER FISHING.

  29. “Animals have the right to live natural lives and to be treated humanely.”

    Why not treat them animaly? ;-)

    I mean after all in the wild most predators often start eating their prey while it is still alive.

    I suppose we could take our guns and hit the woods to punish evil carnivores.

  30. The only ones who say that VDare is racist is the Southern Poverty Law Center

    VDare.com, or VDARE, is a website that advocates reduced immigration into the United States. This includes higher selectivity in legal immigration, favoring Northern Europeans.

    Hmmm, why Northern Europeans?

    The name VDARE and the site’s symbol, the head of a white doe, refer to Virginia Dare, the first child born to English immigrants in the New World.

    I wonder what that signifies?

    VDARE’s masthead includes: […]

    Steve Sailer, a writer and movie critic for The American Conservative, especially controversial for his articles on race, human biology, and gender issues […]

    Notable VDARE guest contributors include: Michelle Malkin, […]and Jared Taylor. Sam Francis was also a regular guest contributor until his death in 2005.

  31. publishing articles by Jared Taylor and the late Sam Francis, whom it labels white supremacist, along with other authors who deal with race and intelligence.

    Hurricane Katrina and IQ

    Steve Sailer, who often writes about race and intelligence, argued on VDARE following Hurricane Katrina that the lower average IQ of African-Americans found in intelligence research correlates with “poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups [resulting in the need for] stricter moral guidance from society.”

    […]Sailer responded that his accusers admitted a correlation between low IQ and poor judgment by supporting the Supreme Court’s 2002 Atkins v. Virginia decision “that, in effect, banned the death penalty for killers with IQs under 70.” John Derbyshire defended Sailer,citing large variance in crime rates by race and birth rates for unmarried women by race.

    According to Peter Brimelow, Sailer’s original article has been emailed out by readers

  32. I don’t always agree with the SPLC, but do you dispute the veracity of this info about VDare head honcho Peter Brimelow from their site?

    The Role of Race
    Brimelow’s political evolution might have been predicted. Although his Alien Nation was well reviewed in many places, it included strong veins of racism and xenophobia.

    He described the role of race as “elemental, absolute, fundamental.” He said that white Americans should demand that U.S. immigration quotas be changed to allow in mostly whites. He argued that spending tax dollars on anything related to multiculturalism was “subversive.” He called foreign immigrants “weird aliens with dubious habits.”

    He worried repeatedly that his son, with his “blue eyes” and “blond hair,” would grow up in an America in which whites had lost the majority.

  33. At one point, he wrote that if one enters an Immigration and Naturalization Service waiting room, just like entering the New York subways, “you find yourself in an underworld that is not just teeming but also almost entirely colored.”

    Even earlier, in 1993, Brimelow, who is himself an immigrant from England, lauded a book by Jared Taylor, who now oversees the racist American Renaissance magazine.

    In his review, he said that racism is “undetectable” in opinion polls and “does not seem” to affect blacks’ economic status. [..]And he said that “policemen of all races are, if anything, more lenient with criminals of a different race.”

    Brimelow has written that he once planned to bestow Dare’s name on “the heroine of a projected fictional concluding chapter in Alien Nation, about the flight of the last white family in Los Angeles.” He was, he said, “dissuaded.”

  34. One essay complains about how the government encourages “the garbage of Africa” to come to the United States. The same writer says once the “Mexican invasion” engulfs the country, “high teenage birthrates, poverty, ignorance and disease will be what remains.”

    Another says that Hispanics have a “significantly higher level of social pathology than American whites. … In other words, some immigrants are better than others.”

    Brimelow’s site carries archives of columns from men like Sam Francis, who is the editor of the newspaper of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, a group whose Web page recently described blacks as “a retrograde species of humanity.”

    It has run articles by Jared Taylor, the editor of the white supremacist American Renaissance magazine, which specializes in dubious race and IQ studies and eugenics, the “science” of “race betterment” through selective breeding.

  35. Recently, VDARE has even begun to publish the writings of Kevin MacDonald, a psychology professor at California State-Long Beach. MacDonald accuses Jews of “dominating” the “movement to change the ethnic balance of the United States by allowing mass, non-traditional [i.e., non-white] immigration.”

    He writes that Jews, believing “the masses ha[ve] to be deceived,” frame their appeals in universalistic language. But behind that are “the Jewish agendas” of the deceivers. MacDonald also mentions “the famously heavy Jewish role” in television news.

    Brimelow has some remarkable things to say in his own essays. Among them, he describes the Pioneer Fund ”” a racist foundation that funds research like that favored by American Renaissance ”” as “a perfectly respectable institution.”

    [..]Brimelow also runs articles by the Pioneer Fund’s new president, Jean-Phillippe Rushton

    Rushton has theorized about a supposed inverse relationship between penis and brain size

  36. (meaning, in his construction, that blacks on average are more promiscuous and less intelligent than whites and Asians).

    In New Orleans, Brimelow joined about 80 people who paid $250 for the two-day session to discuss “America: A European Nation.” Unfortunately for him, Sam Francis was the penultimate speaker, discussing how today’s immigrants “don’t even know how to flush a toilet, the flushing toilet, a European invention, being a marker of civilization.”

    Francis went on to say that the governors of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas should be tried for treason for meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox.

  37. Hmmm… I wonder if the giant mountain of evidence will convince these Rockwell apologists. My guess is no.

  38. “Rushton has theorized about a supposed inverse relationship between penis and brain size”

    LOL! OK, now you’ve convinced me that VDare has some serious wack-jobs at work there.

  39. A former Washington Times columnist, Samuel Francis was dismissed from that paper in 1995 for remarks he made before the 1994 annual meeting of the American Renaissance, a racialist organization run by Jared Taylor, which were deemed racist by the management of the conservative Times. [..]In his speech he remarked:

    The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.

    Francis wrote a column complaining about implicit miscegenation in a skit about Desperate Housewives aired during ABC’s Monday Night Football. Francis vigorously denounced the advertisement, which featured sexual innuendo between a black football player and a white actress, arguing that “[t]he point was…to hurl a pie…in the face of…white racial and cultural identity.” The advertisement, shockingly to Francis,

  40. implicitly argued that “interracial sex is normal and legitimate,” an idea that Francis sees as “fairly radical.” Francis went on to argue that “breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction.”

    Francis was editor of the Citizens Informer quarterly newsletter, published by the Council of Conservative Citizens and an editor of The Occidental Quarterly, a white nationalist and self-described “pro-Western” journal edited by Kevin Lamb and sponsored by William Regnery II.

    Francis was eulogized by Joe Sobran

    http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2005/w050224.shtml

    who also links him along with American Renaissence, American Free Press, and other white power oulets.

    http://www.sobran.com/links.shtml

    Sobran has also spoken at AmRen conferences, and is likewise a heavily featured writer at LRC.

  41. Hmm… The real R.E. Lee didn’t have the same opinion of the “animals” known as African slaves. Why not take the moniker “A. Hitler” instead, the point would be a little more clear.

    Cannoli: The answer to question #56 is pretty obvious. The oppression known as Christianity.

  42. Well, Europe is still Christian today, as is America, at least nominally. The question was in regards to the point that European civilization is due to geography; however, its geography is no different now than it was in the dark ages.

  43. Yes, but The Church is not an omnipresent, totalitarian force as it was in the Middle Ages. Modern religion, while certainly hostile to reason, is not nearly as insidious as the form it took in the Dark Ages.

  44. Okay, fair enough, didn’t know all that about VDare… that’s pretty stupid of them. If you’re going to advocate restricting immigration, you should restrict it for everyone. I concede that point although the SPLC is still a bunch of morons.

    Anyway, for someone who’s all like “OMG ur hostile 2 teh left” you’re sure being hostile to the right. Insult some more Christians while you’re at it? Maybe if you keep this up we won’t have ANY voters. :)

  45. Your right-wing bias…

    Yawn.

    meaning, “your opinion that differs from my own…”

    dumb @#&[email protected] hippies.

    JG

  46. It’s funny how being honest enough to call a racist a racist can earn someone a reputation for calling a (presumed) non-racist a racsit. I guess people who are offended by the notion that racism and racists exist are either a) racists themselves, or b) so entirely ignorant of and insensitve to the existence of racism that they’re probably worse than actual racist

    I see…

    If you could also now explain how the post was ‘sexist’ (having covered classist and racist) hopefully then you’ll be done, because what you gleaned from your C- liberal arts education will have petered out by then.

    JG

  47. libertarians hate environmentalists because they’d rather see large corporations

    Whoops! my bad. Forgot you had 2 ideas left. Never forget the corporashuns.

    JG

  48. It’s “hostile” to note that “Modern religion, while certainly hostile to reason, is not nearly as insidious as the form it took in the Dark Ages”???

    I’m confused.

    This is “insulting” to religious people?

    You certainly have a limp-wristed liberal’s sensitivity, Stu. And your version of PC speech enforcement rivals the most strident Green Party socialist’s. Can’t say anything about race or religion, even if it’s true… WOuldn’t want to offend white people or religious bigots.

  49. It’s insulting because most people who practice modern religion disagree about it being irrational?

    It’s not rocket science, chum…

  50. Stuart, I’m just a little confused. I posted information regarding VDare and Sam Francis. I didn’t insult Christianity.

    U_A considers religion to be irrational. I’m assuming that portion of your comments was directed at him.

    Or was it that you thought that I also have something against Christians, or that you thought U_A posted the info about VDare?

  51. To put it politely, religion (faith) asks you to abandon reason and accept the irrational. That’s not true? I swear you are a fucking pansie.

  52. U_A

    The etymology of religion is “reconnection to the source”
    dictionary.com

    1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

    4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

    5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

    6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

    Most of these definitions are compatible with reason. Atheism is also a faith in the non-existence of God.

  53. atheism defined or rather the latin roots, a (lack 0f) theism (religion). so atheism is a defulat postion, it requries no “faith”. For example all chirdren (until taught otherwise) are athiest.

    If someone has faith and reason operate in two different realms, one of which is a fantasy land. If i beleive in something because it is rational i Have no need for faith.

    And anything that adovates its self with the supernatural is automatically antireason. Why? because supernatural means beyond nature or the natural realm. yet our reason operates only with in the natural realm, supernatural knowledge is an oyxmoron, sense by defintion no knowledge of the supernatural can ever be obtained. for a much better and detailed anaysis see: The Case Against god, by George Smith

  54. so atheism is a defulat postion, it requries no “faith”.

    Agnosticism might be a default position. Atheism is the affirmative belief in the non-existence of God. It can’t be the default position because to actively disbelieve in God requires a knowledge that such a belief is possible.

    If someone has faith and reason operate in two different realms, one of which is a fantasy land.

    Simply because your reason can’t encompass something doesn’t mean it is a fantasy. Your reason can only cover a certain frame of reference, much as your sight can only cover a small portion of the globe. That you can’t see the rest does not mean it can’t exist.

    because supernatural means beyond nature or the natural realm.

    In other words, outside the normal reference frame of confirmed experience and concensus consciousness.

    Knowledge can be obtained, but unless it can also be predictably reproduced and proven to others it remains “supernatural” as far as the rest of the world.

  55. Actually you’re right on your first point.

    We’re just using different definitions, as it turns out.

    Wikipedia:

    Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. A narrower definition includes only those who believe that deities do not exist, and excludes those who hold no position on the question (see agnostics and other non-theists). In other words, an “atheist” can be defined as either:

    * A person who does not believe that at least one god exists; or
    * A person who has a positive belief that no god or gods exist.

    You are using the first definition, whereas I have always beeen familiar with only the second.

    In other words, the first definition includes agnostics as also being atheists, and thus can be supposed to be a default position.

  56. Empiricism itself is taken on faith, if you want to go all postmodern on everything.

    The whole focus of Christian apologetics is to provide logical reasoning in support of Christianity. Would these guys be out there doing this for 2000 years if it all was just irrationality?

  57. I don’t beleive in god because thier is no reason for it, just like i don’t beilve in eleves or unicorns, the burden of proof is on the theism.

    How can knowledge be obatined outside the the realm of reason, what organ or sense can caputre supernatural knowledge?

    True, my eyesight can’t see all the globe, however you are reffering to a different type of faith. Yes i have faith in my friends or the fact the rest of globe is thier. However this is not a faith in the supernatural. faith in the supernatural Futhermore, the faith in my friends or that the globe is thier is one based on reason. The use of faith in this way is just shorthand for “i have prior evidence of this to be true, so I will believe it in the future until I have reason not to”

    yes i can’t see the all the globe, but i have knowledge that is their (have seen parts of it, can look at a sateltie map etc). Just becuase it isn’t in front of me dosen’t mean i abdon reason for the sake of faith.

  58. they do it stuart because religion gives conformt and attempts to be a short cut to knowledge. Yes they have been doing it for 2000 years even though it is irrational. People have been doing a lot of things for 2000 years regardless of whether it is ratinal or not. their attempts to prove god as ratinal have failed misarblely (in my opnion) yet they keep trying.

    a note on agnostism. Agnotic: a (lack of) gnostic (knowledge). Thier have been christian agnostics, they believe in god even though they have no knowldge of him.

  59. and empricsim is based on obersavtions. from this facts are obtained. Scinence is data driven, it requires no faith. Only bullshit requries faith

  60. From wikipedia, using the definition of atheism which I’ve always used:

    Some criticisms include:

    * That atheism is logically equivalent to all other religious positions, requiring faith in an unprovable assertion. If one possesses a box which cannot be opened, and whose contents cannot be examined in any way, claiming that there is nothing inside is no more rationally defensible than claiming that it contains a cat, or any other object or objects which might reasonably fit within.

    Knowledge can be obtained in a trance, or other state of altered consciousness, or by direct revelation, yet as long as it can’t be predictably reproduced and proven it remains “supernatural”. It can encompass all the normal senses and ones for which there is no name.

    If you can trust the word of others that they have been to parts of the world where you haven’t been why do you distrust those who have had religious experiences?

  61. A psycologcial note. Terror mangement is the theory based on 4 facts. 1, people are intellignet,2. since they are intelligent they are aware they are going to die 3. this knowledge creates a large amount of terror. 4. to deal with this terror people come up with worldviews (ie religon, but in a broad sense could include all philopshy/beleifs). This is why people have been trying to prove thier faith, and why they (well not all religous people, but a lot) become so hostile when thier worldview is threated. they are forced to deal with thier eventual death in a different light

  62. then i would claim that information gained by a trance isn’t knowldge, knowldge is more than just undefinable stimuli.
    I don’t beleive personel revalation is a form of “knowldege” just becuase someone feels something or thinks something doesn’t make it true. Can something spring a unicorn into exsitence just because it came to them in a revaltion. if this is true it means their are no sczhopranics (fucking speelling) rather thier halltuinations are just ‘revaltions” . also what if two persons revaltions are contradictions of one another? a condratictioncan (in the abouslute sense) can’t exist. Someone in this case has to be wrong..ie.no knowledge

    i agree if we use your prefered defintion atheism requires some assumptions. But i still contend that everyone is an athiest (ie children) until they are taught about the concept of god.

    Every rational argument for god existing, much less a resonable defintion of god, has been trashed. I need evidence to believe in god, unicorns, elves..et

  63. and the difference in the globe versus relgiong thing is this. I can verfuy with facts that the globe is thier, religous people can’t verfy with evednce that god exist. I can trust other peoples word about the globe being thier because it can be backed up with proof.

  64. i love these threads. The willie nelson debate starts out as a driving while fucked up debate and turns into a discusion about anarchy. A conversation about animal rights turn into a discusiion about the nature of knowledge!

  65. Futhermore, the faith in my friends or that the globe is thier is one based on reason.

    No, you have faith that your observations aren’t misleading, that your mind is functioning properly, and that hell, for that matter, that the Matrix doesn’t have you or some weird shit like that.

    Empiricism is faith in the observable world, this is why nothing is truly “knowable” to humans as objectivists claim. Yes, there are things that are readily apparent, like 2+2=4, but you still have faith that your mind is operating properly and is correctly formulating and comprehending the thought of 2+2=4.

    Is there an objective reality? As a matter of faith, I say that there is. But I am a human like you, only capable of subjectivity, and I have no means to prove this to you. I can’t even prove my own sentience to you.

    This makes all observation, all empiricism, subjective. What we declare to be objective reality is simply those places where our subjectiveness meets.

  66. We all subjectively perceive that 2+2=4, so we declare it a universal and objective principle. But the only “proof” we have for that is faith.

    Can we then say that reason exists? Not as the objectivists understand it. Reason requires faith in unprovable postulates in order to exist. We hold to the postulate that all men have the rights to life, liberty and property, or if you want to break it down even further, we hold to the postulate that we exist in time and that we own ourselves. Communists hold to the postulate that we are social creatures.

    In all cases, this is nothing less than faith in things that, while they may be borne out by what we personally see, are inherently unprovable.

    So then, what is so inherently unreasonable about me saying that I have a subjective experience, a personal relationship with God? If you experienced what I have, perhaps the particular postulates that I hold to would seem more rational to you?

    Or what if I even laid out a rational, empirical

  67. argument for the deity of Jesus Christ? Such things are easily done. (Why didn’t the Romans or the Sanhedrin parade Christ’s dead body around Jerusalem to smother the Christian movement they hated so much? Oh that’s right, HE ASCENDED TO HEAVEN SO THEY COULDN’T.)

    Certainly arguments and counter-arguments can be made for and against that position, but in any case it seems to me that both sides are equally rational, insofar as rationality is possible for humanity.

    We don’t (usually) characterize our political opponents as irrational. Rational arguments can be made for theft and the stripping away of civil liberties. My personal beliefs do you no harm, but I and all others who hold to a religion are branded “irrational”? This seems silly.

  68. “Rushton has theorized about a supposed inverse relationship between penis and brain size”

    AHAHAHAHAHA…what a bunch of tripods we are…

    Schrodinger’s cat, fer chrysakes, Paulie?

    Seemed as relevant as anything else today:~>

  69. If UA and Paulie are representative of what we get from the “left” I am darn glad that we haven’t done a very good job of getting more people from the left. If we did we would never get anything done or in their eyes ever do anything right. Stop arguing so much and come up with something constructive and positive. If they aren’t representative of the “left” then other left leaning people need to step up and tell them to get a clue because anytime anyone from the “right” does, they use up about five posts to rant about something or another to try and get someone to say something so that they can rant for another five posts on something else.

  70. Terry, I’ve made positive suggestions many times. Click on my name if you don’t feel like going through the archives.

    What we declare to be objective reality is simply those places where our subjectiveness meets.

    Exactly. It’s just the equivalent of coordinates on a globe, but an infinite-dimensional globe in this case. We see what is within our field of vision of the curvature, and it appears without much examination to be flat.

    Greginoz,

    If what Rushton says is true, I guess the song’s right – the women are smarter. Perhaps Rushton wants to prove he’s the smartest man of us all?

  71. Terry, Hey I rant to! besides the “rants” as you call them are sometimes when the most intresting and informative points come across. i believe that they are constructive, even when argeement is not reached. And while not a long time reader I have noticed that paulie (and yes, on occasion UA) have good points. In fact paulie has a whole fucking website. I won’t how ever get into this “left” or “right” shit, it reminds me too much of what the “mainstream” does (and yes i know thier is a world of difference on the usages of these words in this case.

  72. So back to ranting, Stuart, Just because the romans dose not offer any proof that jesus was devine. To begin their where lots of “messiahs” at the time of jesus, its that jesus just become more popular after the fact (about 40 to 60 years).
    Besides if jesus is a deity (ssupernatural) that means by defnitoion it is impossaible to prove. We have no senses that can detect what is “beyond natural” because our senses only operate in the natural realm. No one can every prove the supernatural because it is “beyond” proof.

    greginoz, fuck off if you don’t think our discussion is revelant, if you think it is not, why have anything at all?

  73. and from an evouluntiary standpoint objective reality has to exist. If the during the long ‘course” of evolution reality was only subjective our organs would not have devpoled in simlar ways, and yes sometimes people are born with fucked up senses, but i mean on averages as a species. Why? because I organs are devopled to sense outside (in contrast to introspection). If realitly was subjective, then our organs when devople differently for each person.

    And I think a strong case can be made for the case of a reason based philophsy, if not then what makes our stanard any better than a republicrat? If rights are subjective then how can then be consider any better or worse than another set of values. At that point our politcal philosphy becomes nothing more than an unjustifiable whim. with subjective terms liike rights, property etc.

    A belief in an undefinable invisable man (or woman, animal etc) that is beyond any sort of proof, even by vaguest standards of reason.

  74. The actions of this group seem to be a good illustration of the old saw, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I’m sure they thought they were doing something good, however, their method was bad, or at least ill-conceived. I’ve seen documentaries about re-introducing animals into the wild, and it appears to be a long, complicated process. Instead of simply freeing the fish, I wonder if they considered buying out the owners of the farm, and then slowly and carefully re-introducing the fish into the wild, thus insuring a higher rate of survival.

%d bloggers like this: