Aardvark

You are talking in very vague terms. How much more do you think science should get? How do you come to the conclusion that not enough is being spent? Especially as scientific research has never been so highly funded and productive. Are you simply taking the view that however much is spent is never enough?

Being nearer the equator is an important factor. There may have been a degree of pork barrel politics involved, but Florida does seem a relatively logical place for Nasa.

I doubt that Bin Laden would win an election in Iraq. The Iraqi people may not be Western liberals, but not many are as extreme and blood thirsty as Al Qaeda.

Actually the principle is not quite that simple. Bettina is calling for a criminal to face a legal, judical process that could result in death. Many of the protesting Muslims are calling for murder. Regardless of your views on capital punishment there is a significant difference between murdering a person and subjecting someone to the legal process, where they are entitled to a full defence under clear established rules. What Bettina is calling for is completely different from what the extremist Muslims are calling for, not just in a matter of degree but also in a matter of principle.

Scientific research does get quite a lot of money spent on it. Money is a means of rationing finite resources. As such it is not possible to throw unlimited supplies of it at anything. Resources are limited, it is a question of deciding priorities, in effect dividing the cake into different sized slices. It is not possible to cut an infinite sized slice.

Good to know that we have some mutual understanding;) I think that is precisely what will happen. People will express distaste and abhorrence. But they will not issue threats to kill the Iranian cartoonists or editors. In hte West religion is often the butt of insults. Christianity is subjected to deliberate vulgar abuse, have you heard of the latest Gilbert and George exhbit? It deliberately trys to shock by grossly insulting Christianity. It is sick, but they are not being subject to death threats. In the West all religions are subject to this treatment, why is Islam being considered a special case in need of special correction? A point of agreement:-) I don't think that the cartoons were offensive enough to warrant this reaction. Yes, the representation of Mohammed is against Islams teachings, and yes, the cartoons were disrespectful, but there were not utterly outrageous. If the cartoons had depicted Mohammed as a pig with some sort of writing implying that all Muslims were inferior or some such thing then i could understand the outrage. But this reaction to what were actualy fairly mild cartoons indicates that special treatment is being demanded and it shows that large elements of Islam are being deliberately over sensitive. I do not think that the presses freedom should be constrained from printing images of Mohammed or being satirical of him or Islam. Other religions are not accorded this special respect, why should Islam be a special case? Yes, as i've tried to make explicit. It is elements within Islam that are the problem. Obviously, not all Muslims. Yes, lots of Muslims have disassociated themselves from the threats and violence. Lots of Muslims would never dream of killing or burning down an embassy. Unfortunately, large numbers are of the mindset that threats and violence is acceptable. When the Foreign minister of a major Arab nation starts talking about the Muslims in Europe being at threat of being murdered in their millions in a new genocide it is time to realise that this delusional, biggotted, violent world view is becoming very strong and influential in Islam. That has to be openly confronted, not ignored with pleasant platitudes about most Muslims being tolerant. Most Muslims may be tolerant, but a big enough minority are very much not to make the world increasingly unsafe.

I think that making an apology under coercion because of threats would be to appease and therefore encourage further the extermist elements within Islam. After the threats have been made it is no longer possible to apologise without it being as if the apology is only because of the threats, regardless of whether that is actually true. Printing cartoons that are disrespectful to religions is tasteless and crass. The best way to deal with tasteless and crass people is to ignore them or make clear that your respect for them has been lessen. If someone prints a cartoon or exhibits an 'artwork' which denigrates Christianity, as happens frequently, the response is distaste for those crass people. It is not the demand that it be banned and the 'artists' punished or killed. Part of free speech is the right to be rude, repugnant and offensive, and conversely the right to treat those people with the contempt you think they deserve, but not to threaten them with violence. I'm not trying to minimise the impact on some Danish workers and companies, but in terms of the overall economy this is a relatively small disruption. If this disruption is painfull, imagine how bad it could get if this type of reaction is encouraged. Incidentially, i'm not pinning everything on fanatics. I've made a clear distinction between fanatical elements within Islam and Islam as a whole. I agree that the power of the people is an amazing thing. This is a good lesson that i hope will be learned. That peaceful, democratic actions can have great effects. Hopefully this behaviour will be encouraged, rather than the resort to violence and the threats of violence. As i've repeatedly stated. It is extremist elements in Islam who are the problem. Unfortunately these extremist elements are becoming very influential. It is not possible to minimise or dismiss this as the actions of an unrepresentive minority. I haven't catergorized Islam as a religion as warped. I have identified the actions of an important element within Islam as dangerous and warped. That is a very big and definite distinction. Islam is a culture as much as a religion. If you read the Quran you will see that it encompasses an entire world view on how to live, from the smallest detail of personal conduct, to family affairs, to government organisation, to international affairs. Islam is more than a religion, it is an entire way of life, it is a culture. It needs to be understood and respected as such, but that should not mean that is should be off limits for satire or criticism. As to the lessons that this incident should teach us. I heard the Syrian minister for foriegn affairs on the radio this morning, comparing the treatment of Muslims in Europe now with the holocaust. she stated that action was needed now to avert the impending murder of millions of Muslims in Europe. It is clear that the Islamic world has an unhealthy attachment to the politics of grievance, making warped and bizare historical judgements. To consider some mildly unpleasant cartoons in a Danish paper to the systematic mass murder of millions of people is warped to the verge of insanity. This incident shows that there is a sickness spreading within Islam that needs to be openly confronted and treated. This hysterical over sensitivy shows that it is Islam which is facing major problems rather than the West.

There is no such thing as 'just talk'. It is words that ultimately define civilisation. The battle of ideas is the one worth fighting.

On the contrary, i think freedom is worth making sacrifices for, i also think that civilisations can become decadent and forget the importance of and the necessity to defend such freedoms. Hopefully this incident will remind people of the values of western civilisation and why they need defending against barbarian obscurantism. You seem to contradict yourself. You state that apologising would not be an act of cowardice, then you state that the West should apologise because of the threat to peoples right to live decent lives. Apologising because of threats and intimidation would be an act of cowardice and would also be counterproductive in only encouraging further such bigotry from Muslim fanatics. It's a bad situation, but appeasement only makes things worse. Giving in on this because of a little disruption to trade would potentially put a lot more jobs at risk as these fanatics repeated their successful tactics. We tell the peaceful protestors that they have a right to express their opinions, just as the Danish newspapers have the right to express their opinions. People are allowed to peacefully disagree but not to impose their views on others. You are confusing two issues. Religious tolerance does not mean protecting religions from disrespect. Religious tolerance means allowing religions the right to be freely practiced. That is in tandeem with people retaining their right to be rude and disrespectful of each others beliefs and opinions. Part of religious freedom is the freedom to be disrespectful.

No. Islam has been a warlike religion' date=' which expanded by military conquest right from the very start when Mohammed himself led attacks on unbelievers and slaughtered them. That pretty much summrises Islamic history, invasion of India, invasion of the East Indies, invasion of Turkey, invasion of the Balkans, invasion of North and East Africa, invasion of Spain. Islam has always spread by military aggression. Yes, the Muslims invaded and conquered the Holy Lands. The Christians responded by trying to recapture the Holy Lands from the Islamic invaders. In the end the Muslim invaders won, both sides commited horrible atrocities. The idea that this historical event constitutes some sort of terrible crime against Islam is strangely prevalent. Part of the culture of victimhood that is a large trait of modern Islam and is pandered to by large segments of Western opinion.

Possibly because present day African populations are all brown eyed. This indicates that the development of blue eyes happened after, rather than before human populations migrated out of Africa.

I agree that this is a car wreck on a global scale. But what practical measures do you think could be implemented now? It's hard to see how even the most drastic action on climate change could happen in time to help frogs. Perhaps sample populations could be maintained in zoos to ensure survival of species in capitivity even if the wild populations die. Or at the very least, DNA samples of endangered species stored. It's a bit like clutching at straws, but if anything can be salvaged it would be worth it surely?

The point is that to back down because of intimidation and acts of violence will encourage this foul behaviour. It is clear that a lot of people are being deliberately hyper sensitive and are looking for excuses to be offended. If they are appeased on one point then they will simply be emboldened and the situation will be even worse the next time they find some excuse to be offended. Free speech is a freedom that is worth making a lot of sacrifices for. To trade liberty for security will result in you ending up with neither. This is clearly a case where a group of Muslim clerics have deliberately gone out of their way to artificially create outrage (to the extent of lying and forging fake cartoons to fool the gulible) It is a case where a lot of Muslims have deliberately provoked confrontation. Yes, ordinary people are deeply involved. This is a matter which goes to the heart of the type of civilisation we want to live in. Should freedom of expression be curtailed by the fear of violent aggressive religious bigotry, or should we vigourously defend our liberties? A lot of 'fundamentalist' Muslims consdier the 'West' to be irredemably decadent, being easily cowed, unwilling to defend its values and therefore ultimately doomed. Caving in on this issue would help to prove them right. Perhaps they are right.

It's possible to be both unnatural and savage.

Being 'natural' does not imply being morally right. That is the naturalist fallacy. Also, it seems quite reasonable to characterise some Islamic societies as being 'savage'. Unless you think that killing homosexuals by bulldozing walls over them and killing young women in 'honour' killings and killing anyone who dares convert from Islam and hacking limbs off criminals are not examples of savage behaviour?

To not print the cartoon would be to reward the threats of violence. It would send a clear message to the hate mongers that if you threaten people with murder and terrorism that you will get your way. The way to deal with all bullies is to stand up to them.

Part of a free society is the freedom to satarise, contradict be disrespectful. Noone and no system of thought is automatically entitled to be treated with complete respect at all times. Peoples religious beliefs are legitimate targets for satire and criticism. Except that so called 'artists' do that. Christianity is repeatedly mocked and ridiculed in Western Society. For examples look at a few of the publicly funded items such a a Madonna made of shit that was recently exhibited in New York. Or the 'piss christ' or the on going Gilbert and George art exhbit or the Jerry Springer show theatre tour that deliberately insulted Christ. The difference is that although Christians are insulted they don't demand that these shows, exhibits etc should be banned and the 'artists' killed. No, simply that religion has to accept that it is a legitimate target for satire and criticism. Freedom needs to be protected from aggressive bigotry. Being mealy mouthed in the face of demands for censorship backed up by threats of murder is wrong. It is aggressive Islam which is being abusive and destructive here, not the press.

No there isn't. All people should be allowed to express their opinions freely. That includes being disrespectful. So what if Islam FORBIDS anything? Why should Danes (or anyone else)be subject to Islamic law? There is nothing spectacularly indecent about these cartoons. What is indecent is the hysterical Muslim overreaction, calling for the killing of the cartoonists, and what is also indecent is the rush of apologists for this brutal and dangerous aggression from very many Muslims. So freedom of speech. Just as long as you don't actually exercise that freedom in anyway that someone claims 'offends' them. :rolleyes:

If you ran down the street yelling obscenties it might be offensive. But that wouldn't justify people demanding that you have your head cut off. If we want to remain free people living in a free civilisation we have to defend the right to be offensive, not pander to hysterical bigotry.

You are the one calling for that censorship. People should be allowed to express their opinions, even if some other people find those opinions offensive. The fact that Muslims don't like drawings of Mohammed and don't like him being mocked does not mean that people should be prevented from drawing and printing cartoons of Mohammed. Muslims should not be able to impose their beliefs on others. Part of living in a free society is the freedom to mock and satirise. Preventing that under the guise of enforced 'respect' means the erosion of liberty.

Which contradicts your earlier argument. No one here has championed such an argument, ever if they did it would have no relevance to Darwinsim anyway. You appear to be Strawmanning.

You are contradicting yourself. Either there is freedom of the press or there isn't. Stating that you support freedom of the press, but the press must 'respect' the beliefs and customs of Islam in its reporting means that there isn't freedom. Muslims are grossly overreacting and giving us all a very useful lesson in the aggressive bigotry that is mainstream in Islam.

It is possible to conceive of intelligence without consciousness, although a better word might be cleverness. However, it is not really possible for consciousness without intelligence. But this is a bit of a side issue. I can see some possible evolutionary advantages to both intelligence and consciousness but that is still an open area for consideration. Only if you believe that free will can only exist in defiance of the laws of physics. Otherwise there is no conflict. The problem is also people who incorrectly caricature Darwinism as being a 'fully deterministic materialist worldview' or being 'rely matherial processes, leaving no room for God, spirit, free will and afterlife' People such as Darwkins may espouse a atheisitic viewpoint that some object to, but that does not mean, and even Darwkins does not state, that those views are implicit in Darwinism. Darwinism makes no comment at all on the possible existence of God, the spirit or any metaphysical or religious matter. To attack or query it on those grounds is mistaken.