Aardvark

That's the problem. In effect laws are being made by judges. That' not agood thing' date=' when policitical arguments are being abdicated to the courtroom rather than the ballot box. This is the judicary that repeatedly ruled that both slavery and segregation were constitiuional? I can't see any reason or principle which would automatically cause the Judiciary to be more protective of minority rights than the other branchs of government. Why do you have such confidence in these political appointees? You don't need to change the constitution to make a law. That would make more sense. If people are going to appeal to the constitution as if it were a secular version of the 10 commandments it would be helpful if it actually did state something about the rights which it supposedly upholds. My basic point is that political arguments should be settled by votes, democracy, not by lawyers and judges. If this new law is wrong then it should be overthrown because the voters reject it, not because it suppossedly contradicts some rights that have been discovered, in a document that makes no actual reference to the matter anyway.

If that was the point that he wanted to make then let him come out and say it. He doesn't make clear points, just snipes away with irrelevant semantic diversions.

Please do NOT bring race into this. This is not about race, it is about religion and culture. Surely you are aware that there are white Muslims just as there are Arab Christians?

No. Arguing that a womans right to control of her internal organs can be overuled on ''Presumably the same basis by which state regulates commercial transfer and handling of human tissue.'' is obviously mendacious. It is a clear act of trolling, attempting to disrupt a serious discussion, with irrelevant pedantitic, semantic asides. I'm surprised that you can't clearly see that.

Humans are excellent at selective blindness. If they don't want to see it and it isn't actually rubbed in their faces than they won't see it. Personally the idea of eating a McDonalds burger makes me feel sick.

re pcs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll (he was amusing, but now he's getting pretty dull)

When i look at your constitiution i can find no mention to a right to privacy. It seems that a right to privacy has been 'discovered' where it wasn't written and then from this 'discovered' right more rights extrapolated. That seems like a clear warping and misinterpreting of the constitituion. These rights are invented by courts and then held up as demanding absolute obedience. It all seems highly undemocractic. Surely it would be better to argue against a law on the grounds that it is wrong rather than it is 'unconstituional' and to use democracy rather than recourse to lawyers to establish and protect peoples rights?

How about this for a pragmatic approach, the only way a free society can exist is with tolerance. And tolerance means tolerating things that offend you. Otherwise all those people at ground level are going to start fighting each other. In this case it is the Muslims who are going to need to learn the meaning of tolerance. Threatening to kill people because their feelings have been hurt isn't acceptable behaviour and should not be pandered to.

I think they'd have lost that particular case. Are you arguing that the cartoons in question were slanderous? (actually it would be libel but i understand what you mean) Arguing that the cartoons were wrong because they were slanderous is a completely different thing from arguing that they were wrong because they were offensive.

Yes and that example illustrates the matter nicely. Calling for censorship of a cartoon because you don't like it is wrong. Yes. That's part of living in a tolerant society' date=' you have to tolerate speech that you find offensive. I've no problem with allowing people that freedom, but that's a different issue. Physical safety isn't the same issue as free speech And that greater good would be? No, it's very easy to work out. In a free society people should be free to print satirical cartoons. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

Looks like an A plus.

I've taken several IQ tests and each time i've got wildly varying results. They seem to be seriously limited in usefulness.

What a lovely example of a strawman. He made no such correlation, you did, and yet you then ask him for evidence to support the assertion that he did not make. You're starting to amuse me again. Well done.

The links Bettina posted that checked show Muslims commiting killings without the support of any laws. In particular she linked to a news article about muslims in Afghanistan killing people in a demonstration about the cartoons. It is clear that many Muslims are calling for killing of the cartoonists without even the fig leaf of legal sanction. That is the salient point. This is a confusion of two different principles. As Bettina has pointed out, large numbers of Muslims are calling for murder. The fact that Iran also has ways of legally killing people does not detract from that. I don't recall anyone making that argument in this thread, i'm certainly not making it myself. That assumes that all nations are equal. I'd argue that a repressive, theocratic state is not equal to a liberal democracy and to treat it as if it were would be cultural relativism and an abdication of reason. No, it's not 'all right'. It's simply a different matter from killing without a legal framework. Pointing out the difference doesn't make it right. It makes it a different matter. Killing without a legal framework is straightforward murder. Killing within a legal framework might still be wrong. Incidentally your argument there seems to contradict your argument that nations should have the equal freedom to enact whatever laws they like. And again, pointing out that extra legal killing is wrong does not, Ipso facto, make legal killing right. No, the protestors are calling for Danish citizens, in Denmark to be killed for acts commited in Denmark. What law under Irans legal system presumes jurisdiction over Denmark? There are several differences, both of principle, degree and apparent justice. The Iranian protestors are calling for illegal murder, even under their laws it is not legal to kill a Dane in Denmark for an act committed in Denmark. Bettina is calling for a legally convicted murderer to be killed. That is a difference of principle. In terms of degree, Bettina is calling for someone to be killed for commiting a brutal murder. The Iranian protestors are calling for someone to be killed for drawing a cartoon. Unless you completely abdicate your reasoning to cultural relativism that obviously a serious difference of degree. In terms of justice, killing someone for drawing a cartoon is manifestly disproportionate, whatever escaticies of self indulgent outrage the protestors wish to revelin, whilst killing someone for child murder is a clearly proportionate response, even if you don't actually agree with it. The Muslim mobs are threatening violence themselves and calling for extra legal murder. At least the Western mobs are calling for killing by a state sanctioned system of justice. That still leaves the Western mob looking pretty contemptable, but not at threatening, dangerous or numerous as the Muslim mobs who have attacked and killed people, unlike the Western mobs outside courthouses. Every nation has its share of bloodthirsty morons. What matters is whether they are pandered to. Muslim mobs who burn down buildings and kill people are surpassing the western mobs in the barbarity stakes. I can't remember any Muslim embassies being burnt down by Western mobs, even after provocations such as major terrorist attacks. Yet Muslim mobs burn down embassies because of a few cartoons. In terms of barbarity the Muslim mob is winning. The principle i'm pointing out is the difference between a society based on law and a society based on force. Calling for someone to be killed by a legal system is different from calling for someone to be simply murdered. As for why it might be right for one nation to have the right to impose capital punishment but not another. Some nations are more civilised than other nations. You use the example of Nazi Germany. A clear example of a less civilised, barbarous state. This states legal system has less moral authority than more civilised nations such as, for example, Australia. Not all nations are equal, some are more civilised than others, therefore they are entitled to more moral authority and respect of their actions and institutions. The real world isn't amenable to absolutist principles, Burkian conservatism is a much better recogniction of reality. Otherwise you end up with stupid 'principles' such as the unfettered right to bear arms. Some confusion there, my founding fathers never said any such thing and i think those founding fathers were talking a lot of tripe. (my founding fathers probably said something like, ''give us your land, animals, women and any money you have and we might not slaughter you all, ha ha ha.....etc'') Putting conditions on principles is how you put them into practice. Principles such as the right to vote are great, but you need conditions such as being at least 18 and not being a lunatic. Reasonable conditions i think you'd agree?

Rational basis, false information on resume. Supporting evidence, false information on resume. False information on resume is fraud. Misrepresenting yourself to enter into a legally binding contract of employment is fraudulent. No assumptions required there. You don't know my faith. No. The allegation stands because of the evidence. Deutsch used a resume with false information. That is fraudulent, therefore Deutsch is guilty. Reasoning backed by factual evidence. If ''superstitions'' means reasoning based on factual evidence then sure why not? Come on, try harder. You were amusing me but now you seem to be losing the thread.

Oh dear. Please try harder. No assumption necessary. He used a resume with false information. He was caught. Join the dots, it's easy:-) No. The allegation is supported by the evidence. The false information on the resume. You can gather that if you want. The rest of us will be happy sticking to the facts.

The factual and reasonable basis that Deutsch used a resume to get a job that had a major untruth on it equals evidence and valid reasoning. The allegations stem from Deutsch having been caught lying on his resume. He was caught in the act. Nice and simple.

Nice evasion there, unable to answer my point? Or do you seriously believe that science is not about objective fact? Yes' date=' the returns of understanding how the universe and everything in it works. Small return obviously. I don't need to do anything. It's the prevalent view amongst people with any form of scientific understanding. Perhaps you would care to put forward any evidence at all for your odd assertions, or are you just going to continually move the goal posts? For your edification on the subject i suggest you check Lysenko and scientific education in the USSR. That could be your homework project. Have fun.

Science is about understanding objective facts about how the universe works. Care to dispute that? Nope, he who is right wins. That's the great thing about science, it's ultimately about facts. In the end science education has to come back to science, and that's about objective fact, fixed, immutuable laws of science. Any attempt to get away from that is going to quickly fail.

They can do all that, but they still can't alter scientific fact. Scientific laws are not subject to repeal by humans, however many votes they get.

If science and truth are a matter of opinion polls then lay out the red carpet for the grey aliens with their probes. And be sure to be careful for all the ghosts around.