And now for something completely different...

I posed this question on sciforums.com, a forum I frequent. Is freedom of enough value to justify suffering?

Case in point: waterboarding of suspected terrorists.

I have a right to be free from terrorism within the US(supposedly). My government seeks to protect my rights as a citizen by performing a non-deadly non-permanently damaging torture to evoke answers from recalcitrant detainees who are known to be willing to die to kill me.

But torture is wrong!

Is it? If a man told you someone was going to harm your family, and you thought he knew who, would you refrain from ANY means to get the information you wanted? Or is it more acceptable to allow harm to come to your family, as long as you haven't "stooped to his level"?

I'm sorry, but the government, as it stands, is required to protect its citizens at whatever cost. If a christian group started blowing things up in the US, would you want them treated differently? How about the fact that these people "declared war" on the US, making them enemy combatants? I say they should count themselves lucky to not have faced worse torture. To be honest, had the governemnt never revealed the existence of the detainees, would their fates have mattered to anyone?

I'm not even going to go into the madness of potentially prosecuting the ex-government for things the current government disapproves of. Smacks a bit of delegalizing one's opposition if you asked me.

Fundamentalists are fundamentalists I guess...

Ever talk to a die-hard fundamentalist christian? If you live in the west, or in the US, the answer is probably yes. No matter what you say, no matter how cogent your argument, you are not going to shake them from what they believe.

I have found that such ways of thinking exist in other aspects of life as well. Ask a biologist probing questions about evolution, you will probably be insulted and told to go study. Ask questions about the possibility of non-einsteinian physics occuring inside our universe but outside of our ability to witness them to an astronomer or physicist, more often than not they will ignore you as a fool.

Why is this? Wouldn't it be more effective to cogently answer such questions? Are such questions threatening to the scientific community's beliefs? I know that when I ask a question and I'm told something to the effect of,"because I said so" or,"because that's the way it is" I immediately think back to our friendly fundamentalist christian who is looked down on for being closed-minded.

"Go read your bible" "God said so"
"Go read a textbook" "The evidence all points to..."

How different are these things?

Before you go into "evidence" I'd like to invite you to a game. I call it the evidence game. You tell me what makes a given set of evidence acceptable in all circumstances. Please begin with proving history as true through evidence, and let's start with... I dunno... how about Babylon? Should be easy enough.

Not how "they" know, but how YOU know, would be preferable, but if you only know because you "believe" "them", then how "they" know will have to suffice, won't it?

On a side note, I'm not trying to promote either side, but point out that such closed-mindedness is not only moronic, but somewhat frightening when it comes to scientific pursuits. Shouldn't all sides be considered? If something can't be disproven, should we consider it such because we don't like it?

Irritation

I want to make the blog more space-efficient. Sadly without any skills as far as html or any other acronym I'm stuck with a premade piece. I think that a brown "frame" to suggest a desk and a larger parchment would be nice, as well as a more proper rendering of my favorite artist's work. If I see a collection of machiavellian quotes then dear Ari will be leaving.

If you are reading this, maybe you should become a follower. You know you want to be on the various black lists made by our friends in the government. So join the fun!

been away for awhile...

So many questions... so little time. My Internet time is limited... again. So, if you have something you want me to address, maybe email me. I'll be back on soon. In the meantime, some things to consider:

1: Saw both Religulous and Expelled. Interesting that I agree with both. Do you?

2: Can you name 5 things that don't require some level of belief?

Later!