Aardvark

It is tough to try to define 'damage'. I was hoping someone would have a better idea than I have been able to come up with. So far' date=' if species extinction does not occur, the idea of ecological damage appears to be intuitive, rather than scientific. This is not a good situation.[/quote']

 

A good rule of thumb is that ecological damage has occured where ecological simplification has resulted.

I'm writing a book and I need to know if the absence of Iron, copper, or other minerals would hold the human civilization back in terms of industry, weapons, machinery and electricity.

Are you considering the absence of all minerals or just a selected few?

If a few minerals were missing it is possible that humans would have developed substitutes, it depends on which were missing. The lack of copper and iron would be an impediment but not obviously insurmountable to the development of advanced civilisation. Cultures have developed without them.

[braveheart]"Freedom to be dictated to by local Scottish lords instead of British ones from several dozen miles away!"[/braveheart']

Scottish Lords are British.

South Korea is the only nation that can really deal with them, since both nations seem to want eventual peaceful reunification, and there is a lot of mutual sympathy there.

You are right that both Koreas share very deep ties, but i fear you are too generous in your assement of the North Korean regimes attitude. It is fully aware that any peaceful unification would lead to the immediate ousting of the North Korean regime from power. Instead its only hold on power is to deliberately enhabce the tensions and hatreds that justify its immense military build up that enable it to maintain its control.

Peace and reconciliation would destroy the North Korean regime, therefore its policies must be aggressive and dangerous.

I guess you don't understand how the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System[/url'] works then...

If you check what i wrote you will see that i made a clear distinction between 'navy birds' and the ballistic missile defence system, which i pointed out had been developed with so much effort.

Simply parking a carrier between North Korea and the USA isn't going to provide any defence, despite the 'navy birds'. The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence System , part of the defences i refered to, are still being developed and are not considered fully operational despite some promising test results.

If N Korea were to really lauch an attack on the USA the Aegis system would not provide any great surety of security.

I wasn't really thinking about using the missile defense system. Put a carrier in the neighborhood when he's ready to launch and let a couple of Navy birds shoot it down as soon as it's in international air space....

'Navy birds' don't have the capacity to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles flying outside the atmosphere. That's why the US government has spent so much on developing the missile defence system in the first place.

Let's not argue about weather faith or science is right because its impossible to come to a sound conclusion!

If you are ill, it's antibiotics and sciencitific medicine that will cure you, not chants, mantras and charms. If you go on holiday it will be in a plane obeying the laws of physics, not on a magic carpet.

It is not only possible to come to a sound conclusion. It is inescapable. Science works, science demonstrates repeatable and consistent results. Faith does not.

Trying to imply or argue for a parity of esteem for faith and science is to wilfully ignore reality.

How any one can claim to quantify a property for which there isn't a universally established definition of' date=' is beyond me.

 

Even Gardner's categories are loosely and, in my opinion, arbitrarily defined and incomplete.[/quote']

 

That is a fair point, but at least Gardner is recognising that their are different variatitions of intelligence. The idea that intelligence is not a single easily definable characteristic is an advance and Gardner also does accept that his catergorisations are ,too a degree, arbitrary.

Most evolutionist are not theistic' date=' they're humanists or atheists. [/quote']

 

On what basis are you making that statement?

 

 

If this is all the ToE says, it's not even a theory because pre-Darwinain's belived in adaptation.

 

Not so. The idea that species were not immutable was highly controversial.

 

 

So well that most paleontologists don't accept evolution.

 

I'll be blunt. I think that is a false statement.

 

If i'm wrong i apologise but please substantiate that, as in my experience, both personal and professional, paleontologists are some of the most well versed evolutionists in existence.

Humans are not like dogs - there is no hardwired social strata.

And since when have humans been magically separated from the rest of the nature world?

Of course humans have hardwired social behaviour including group mentality and loyalities.

Perhaps there was a damn good reason it could not cut the mustard as a species

The Wollemi pine has cut the mustard as a species.

200 million years and still here. That's a pretty impressive record.

I behaved myself' date=' even when a group of people were referred to as "sodomites."[/quote']

 

Just out of curiosity, is the word 'sodomite' always perjorative?

Radar.

No radar. 3rd Reich win WW2.

I wonder how people would've reacted if Livingstone had made a statement more in reference to Muslims then Jews. Would've the statement been tkaen less seriously? More seriously?

Probably with some confusion.

Livingstone is well known for sucking up to Fundamentalist Muslims.

(slightly oddly considering his views on feminism, homosexuality and abortion.)

I would consider it a gathering hall of people who believe all the major world religions have some truth behind them. People in my church believe a wide range of religions from Buddhism to Druidic tradition. We realize that in most cases all the paths lead up the same mountain(which is why I defend the Islamic tradition).

Interesting viewpoint. How do you deal with the contradictions that can arise between different faiths? If you are accepting that all religions may contain elements of truth what is your response to a claim for exclusive possesion of the truth by a religion?

This question seems pertinent as it is a basic Islamic tradition that Islam is directly based on the word of God without any room for interpretation or compromise with other faiths.

You seem to face the same dilemma as pacifists facing violent aggression.

No' date=' for bringing his office into disrepute, [/quote']

 

That's just a meaningless cliche. Just how has the office of Mayor of London been brought into 'disrepute'. it hasn't. The office of Mayor of London remains reputable.

 

especially at a time when incitement to hatred is being hotly debated.

 

What do you mean here?

 

Muslims are killing people because of a cartoon so the Mayor of London should be impeached for being rude to a journalist?

 

I'm afraid your opinions appear highly sanctimonious.

The Welsh have treditionally had a solution to this problem. Without going into gory detail, it involves wearing wellington boots and using them to secure the goat's hind legs. A purely engineering problem and solution.

I hear velcro gloves are also popular.

I dont know why I am again leaping to his defence,

I'm not attacking him.

I may not attend, you may not attend, but that is something entirely different

That isn't what i'm asking. :confused:

I'm asking him why he thinks his God is worth worshipping? A fair question, surely?

An elegant solution to a sticky problem?

Yes you understood me correctly. Why appreciate this life when the next is infinately better? If the chuch continues to preach of Heaven and Hell our lives will be trying to adhere to a set of rules to get into a place that has yet to be verified by any substantial means.

 

-AweBurn

 

P.S. I'm talking too much but this sort of conversation is what really gets me fired up.

If there's no heaven or hell, then why care about the existence or not of God? Why care about his teachings? Why bother going to your church?

I think that Livingstone is is not up for re-election for another three years' date=' so the electorate don't have a say. The man is an unreconstructed leftie semi-loonie who got in on the rebound from Thatcherism, and even the Blairite tendency campaigned against him. As a lefty loonie, his views are, surprise surprise....extreme.

 

That is all true.

 

And not one word of it alters the fact that he has a genuine democratic mandate.

 

Only suspended? If we had a constitution, perhaps he could have been impeached, I would have voted for that!

 

Impeached for what?

 

Having unpopular opinions?

You know, as much as I feel America has gone downhill, I can't help but feel that the UK is worse...

A case of decline in different directions?

P.S. Though you didnt ask I also have SEVERE distaste for the concept of Heaven. It is life denying. What reason is there to appreciate a beautiful flower in this life when, in your afterlife, (if you adhere to the necessary regulations to do get to heaven) you will be presented with infinite beauty for eternity.

Off topic, but, do you believe in an after life then?

This is ridiculous. The Mayor suspended by an unelected group of 3 for making an 'offensive' remark to a journalist.

Free speech anyone?

In a democracy if you don't like a politician then elect someone else. The idea that a politician can be removed from office for expressing the 'wrong' opinions is a very serious and bad precedent.

I don't believe Afghanistan declared war on the US either literally or metaphorically.

Afghanistan did in effect declared war by refusing to cooperate in handing over the terrorist criminals of Al Qaeda, instead choosing to continue to provide them with sanctury after 9/11.

Nor do I believe that the problem is with the entire religion, though there is apparently evidence that many Americans conflate the two terms terrorist and muslim.

Unfortunately there is a significant correlation between terrorism and Islam. Most Muslims are not terrorist, that is a truism, but a significant number are or are supporters of it.

Incidentally, Bin Laden would have been opposed to the regime of Hussein too since it was secular.

Perhaps you forget that Hussien had Bin Laden declared 'Man of the Year' after 9/11?

Women in Iraq held positions of power (they still do, though when the new government forms and is strongly theocratic, as it inevitably will be,

Highly doubtful. The recent elections in Iraq did not show a demand for strongly theocratic government, esp as Iraq is religiously mixed which would make a highly theocratic government almost impossible to enforce.

Perhaps you would like to substantial your odd opinion?

that might set back some of the rights and freedoms we supposedly support), and benefited from many freedoms that are alien to those in countries in the middle east that are considered partners of the west.

Democracy might set back freedoms whilst dictatorship helped protect them?

You need to reexamine your ideas.

The reasons for the attack are far more complicated than that. The last one, bikini clad women, is clearly not something that all followers of Islam have a problem with. Look at Dubai if you don't believe me.

Dubai is on a high state of alert because of the terrorist threat from those followers of Islam who do have a problem with bikini clad women.

There are enough Muslims with a problem there to result in danger of bombings and machine gun attacks.

As I said' date=' Bin Laden is Saudi, not from Afghanistan. He was not the mastermind of the Taliban, though they certainly refused to hand him over after repeated requests by the US and in defiance of the UN.

 

It is unclear to whom your pronoun 'they' pertains, it appears to shift continually from being Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, those specifically taking part in the attack on 9/11 and the nation of Afghanistan.. [/quote']

 

As all those groups were intimately linked that is a fair use of the pronoun 'they'. Al Qaeda operated with the support and protection of their friends, allies and supporters, the Taliban who were the rulers of Afghanistan. To call them 'they' is a bit like refering to American and British troops in WW2 as 'they'. Perfectly logical and reasonable.

 

 

 

 

Don't you feel that is a little rash to brandish an entire religion based upon the actions of some people who during the 1980s were supported by the US government?

 

Myth. Al Qaeda and Taliban were never supported, helped or funded by the US government.

 

Fact. Islamic Terrorist groups have very broad support across the Muslim world.

 

 

 

From briefly scanning this thread I seem to be under the impression that you condone the death penalty, too. There is no 'moral' way to kill someone, and an 'immoral' one with the death penalty, surely.

 

It is possible to make a clear moral distinction to executing someone in a legal system based on clear codes of law and justice accountable to democratic government and between theocratic terrorists.

 

Think about it, the differences are fairly obvious.

 

 

 

Ah' date=' Iran, which was (hopefully) going to be a model of democracy in the middle east [/quote']

 

Very novel opinion. Doesn't fit any of the facts i've heard. Care to enlighten us with your unique insights?

 

until in 1953 the US decided to support the installation of a theocratic dictatorship,

 

Wrong, the Shah was the opponent of theocratic dictatorship, he was a secular ruler.

 

which led in the late 70s to the overthrow by the Muslim clerics

 

You contradict yourself, why would Muslims clerics want to overthrow a theocratic dictatorship? anyway, to blame the 1979 Iranian revolution on a 1953 coup doesn't mesh. There is not enough of a causal link there.

 

and arguably saw the start of the modern fomenting of anti-American sentiment in the middle east.

Anti American sentiment is based on the Clerics overthrowing the Shahs government? Were are the connections. your making large statements with no supporting evidence. What you are saying just doesn't make sense.

 

It cost Carter the election,

 

The peanut farmer was firmly on the way out anyway.

 

and led to Reagan taking power and creating the underpinnings of what we now call Al-Qaeda, but was then an anti-soviet freedom fighting group supported by the CIA (Bush Snr of course was head of the CIA, though I don't know if the time scales agree). Ill thought out intervention has a way of biting back.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Al Qaeda was never supported by the CIA, it never received any support from the West.

 

 

 

The PLO agreed to support the existence of an Isreali state, currently Hamas is refusing to honour this pledge. So some Palestinians are not committed to wiping Israel off the map. Please try to bear the moderates in mind.

 

'Some Palestinians' are moderates. Sure, fine. But the majority of them just voted for Hamas, an organisation that is an openly declared terrorist movement that wants to totally destroy the entire nation of Israel.

 

Please try to bear in mind the existence of a majority vote for violent terrorist fanactics.

 

 

Attempts to meddle in the Middle East and impose certain western views by force are one of the things that has led us to this current problem.

 

The problems in the Middle East grew before any attempts to impose anything from the West by force. Force was only used AFTER these problems arose. Your understanding of the situation is upside down.

 

Plus Isreal has nuclear weapons,

 

Which they developed after being repeatedly attacked by all their neighbours who openly stated that they wished to completely destroy Israel. Which makes Israels development of nuclear weapons a rational, defensive and morally acceptable matter. As opposed to Iran which faces no external threats and is instead prone to highly aggresive behaviour and threats to its neighbours and Israel.

 

There is no comparision between Israel developing nuclear weapons and Iran wishing to do so.

 

something they tried to hide, and even now after 'releasing' him from prison after 18 years (11.5 in solitary confinement) they keep attacking the civil liberties of the man who revealed their existence, Mordechai Vanunu.

 

Attacking the civil liberties of a traitor who deliberately broke the law betrayed natioanl security. All countries attack the civil liberties of criminal traitors. In most Arab countries it would not have been solitary confinement, it would have been painful death.

 

 

 

52 were killed in the attack. As a comparison' date=' 13 people were killed in the Bloody Sunday shooting [source: freely available information, just one of those things you know']. In 1990 35,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran, 15,000 are estimated to have died in another earthquake in Iran in 2003 [source bbc news]. 3,000 people die per day in motoring accidents, 3,500 people per year in the UK [http://www.roadpeace.org/pr/hollowv.html]

 

Terrorism isn't so bad because earthquakes are worse? Comparing terrorist attacks with legitimate army firing on 'Bloody Sunday'?

 

Serial killers only kill a few dozen people. Lets not bother imprisoning them, after all compared with smoking thats almost nothing.

 

 

Perhaps you are worrying abuot the wrong thing if it is fear of attack that concerns you.

 

Or perhaps worrying about evil' date=' deliberate murder is the right thing.

 

 

'The West', if that is even a meaningful phrase has a long and checkered history of intervention and double standards in the Middle East. As an example look at the duplcity of Blair in making the case for war with Iraq. As late as Feb 2003 he asserted to the House of Commons that Hussein would be allowed to stay in power if he handed over any WMD and complied with the UN resolution 1441. Now he is making claims of moral necessity to remove him since there are no WMD.

 

Your attempts at drawing a moral equivalence between the West and Islamic dictatorships is wrong. For example, When Blair stated that there would be no invasion if Hussein handed over all WMD, all Hussein had to do was let the UN weapons inspectors come in and confirm that there were no WMD. Instead he refused.

 

A clear example of Hussein being duplicitious while Blair was clear and open.

 

It is Islamic groups who deliberately target civilians, who deliberately target places of worship, who are following a fanactical creed of hatred. It is these groups who are the problem, not the West.