Scouted: The Mercies of The Vatican: 'Christian' Aid

[The Fool]

<>

Villagers furious with Christian Missionaries 


Samanthapettai, Jan 16 (ANI): Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny 
Hindu village in India's southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian 
missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their 
religion.

Samanthapettai, near the temple town of Madurai, faced near devastation on the 
December 26 when massive tidal waves wiped it clean of homes and lives.

Most of the 200 people here are homeless or displaced , battling to rebuild 
lives and locating lost family members besides facing risks of epidemic,disease 
and trauma. 

Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the 
much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in 
days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing 
biscuits and water.

Heated arguments broke out as the locals forcibly tried to stop the relief 
trucks from leaving. The missionaries, who rushed into their cars on seeing 
television reporters and the cameras refusing to comment on the incident and 
managed to leave the village.

Disappointed and shocked into disbelief the hapless villagers still await aid. 

"Many NGOs (volunteer groups) are extending help to us but there in our village 
the NGO, which was till now helping us is now asking us to follow the Christian 
religion. We are staunch followers of Hindu religion and refused their request. 
And after that these people with their aid materials are leaving the village 
without distributing that to us," Rajni Kumar, a villager said.

The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has 
left no one untouched.(ANI)

--
"That all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction, and 
procurement of the present National Administration; and that for this high 
crime against the Constitution, the Union, and humanity, we arraign that 
Administration, the President, his advisers, agents, supporters, apologists, 
and accessories, either before or after the fact, before the country and before 
the world; and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actual perpetrators of 
these atrocious outrages and their accomplices to a sure and condign punishment 
thereafter." --Republican Party Platform 1856 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:08:52 -0700
When you hear a parrot squawk - "Early bird gets the squirm" - then you 
know it's gone insane.
Knowledge: The early bird gets the worm.
Wisdom: The early worm gets eaten by the bird.
Knowledge & Wisdom:
"Don't roust your faith bird-high an' you won't do no crawlin' with the 
worms." - Tom Joad/The Grapes of Wrath.

-Travis "add whatever context you like" Edmunds
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dave Land]

When you hear a parrot squawk - "Early bird gets the squirm" - then 
you know it's gone insane.
Knowledge: The early bird gets the worm.
Wisdom: The early worm gets eaten by the bird.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:38:15 -0700
As I understand it it's possible for some birds, if confined and deprived 
of an interesting environment, to actually go insane. (Though I'm not sure 
how that would be diagnosed...)
When you hear a parrot squawk - "Early bird gets the squirm" - then you know 
it's gone insane.

-Travis "wants a cracker" Edmunds
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 29, 2004, at 7:23 PM, Steve Sloan wrote:
You may want to add parrots and crows to the list, because
they're also pretty smart. In particular, I've seen parrots
in documentaries show remarkable abilities for spoken and
symbolic language.
You're right -- I forgot about them. As I understand it it's possible 
for some birds, if confined and deprived of an interesting environment, 
to actually go insane. (Though I'm not sure how that would be 
diagnosed...)

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Steve Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may want to add parrots and crows to the list,
> because
> they're also pretty smart. In particular, I've seen
> parrots
> in documentaries show remarkable abilities for
> spoken and
> symbolic language.

Alex!  Alex the parrot has a larger vocabulary than
some of my college classmates...he'd probably make a
more lively guest at a party, too :-)

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Steve Sloan]

Warren Ockrassa wrote:
> I don't believe so; I was pretty specific about where I
> thought it existed. The list is really quite short:
> 1. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos.
> 2. Bottlenosed dolphins.
> 3. Giant squid and/or some octopus species.
> The third is tentative, but cephalopods do seem to be
> pretty dang bright.
> The consciousness present in apes is sufficient for them
> to produce language when taught to sign. If dolphins are
> not communicating complexly, then it's pretty hard for us
> to say we are either (just because we can't decode all the
> elements of a language doesn't mean it doesn't exist).
You may want to add parrots and crows to the list, because
they're also pretty smart. In particular, I've seen parrots
in documentaries show remarkable abilities for spoken and
symbolic language.
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 14, 2004, at 12:47 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 14 Sep 2004, at 2:57 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
If obesity is genetic,
why are so many American dogs fat too?
It doesn't bear thinking about, does it?
Eww.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Though it does provide a new take on "doggy style".


-- WthmO
More fun than a bucket of live bait.
But not as much fun as a trailerful of raccoons.
--
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[William T Goodall]

On 14 Sep 2004, at 2:57 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
If obesity is genetic,
why are so many American dogs fat too?
It doesn't bear thinking about, does it?
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so 
few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping 
looks so silly." - Randy Cohen.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 10, 2004, at 10:39 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
Me

For we all are individuals and cannot be lumped together in this 
particular context because of that.

Actually we can (I think), since I-consciousness is a trait, or at 
least that's how I see it. And in order for that "I" to be there, 
I've got to have something to contrast it with -- otherwise "I" has 
no meaning.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to listen in, it 
still makes a sound. Similarly, if I were the sole remaining human 
being on this planet (for whatever reason), I would still be me. And 
being a sentient life form - the kind that Data just loves scanning 
for - I would be aware my own existence and surrounding environment in 
ways that only a sentient being can.
Right; I think we're in agreement here that differentiation is in 
effect. This isn't exactly the example I had in mind but it seems to be 
roughly in the same ZIP code at least.

Basically all I'm suggesting is that while the gene drives evolution 
in animals lacking self-awareness, as soon as the "I" surfaces, as 
soon as visible signs of intelligence can be seen (and selected for 
by potential breeding mates), we're moving into Dawkinsian 
meme-space. Genes are no longer the sole driving factors in human 
evolution, in selection, or in determining what traits pass along. 
(After all we see traits other than the physical, such as tastes in 
music, etc.)
Yes, yes. I understand all of that. And all I'm suggesting is that the 
'I' is limited to the 'I' in a very strict sense. Meaning that a 
generalization such as yours - while being accurate to some degree - 
cannot be 100% assured, as we have no idea what breeding choices 
individual people might make.
Sure, I'll agree with that, yeah. So perhaps I was either 
overgeneralizing or being overly optimistic. Knowing me I'd lean toward 
the former. ;)

Which you kinda stated by saying that potential breeding mates are 
selected for reasons other than tight-fitting jeans.
Interlocking genes, possibly?
-- WthmO
If obesity is genetic,
why are so many American dogs fat too?
--
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Julia Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:55:38 -0500
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:09:43 -0230, Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> As for your take on it, I can certainly see where you're coming from, 
and
> can even agree on -'the presence of self-awareness, being almost by
> definition other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being
> behaves'- as I'm sure that the awareness of others would definitely 
change
> how an 'I-conscious' being behaves. A simple example of this would be
> someone observing proper table manners when dining with other people.
> Conversely, when eating alone, I doubt that many people give a rodent's
> posterior as to how much of their food ends up on their shirt as opposed 
to
> in their mouth (a little extreme, but you get the point). As far as your
> overall scheme though, I'm not buying. But that's just me...being an
> individual.

Bad example -- you ignore the stain factor.  :)  I'm equally caring
about the amount of spaghetti sauce on my shirt whether dining alone
or with others.
 Pick up some Oxi Clean and let the sauce fall where it may.
-Travis "chlorine free" Edmunds
_
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen 
Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Julia Randolph]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:09:43 -0230, Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> As for your take on it, I can certainly see where you're coming from, and
> can even agree on -'the presence of self-awareness, being almost by
> definition other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being 
> behaves'- as I'm sure that the awareness of others would definitely change
> how an 'I-conscious' being behaves. A simple example of this would be
> someone observing proper table manners when dining with other people.
> Conversely, when eating alone, I doubt that many people give a rodent's
> posterior as to how much of their food ends up on their shirt as opposed to
> in their mouth (a little extreme, but you get the point). As far as your
> overall scheme though, I'm not buying. But that's just me...being an
> individual.

Bad example -- you ignore the stain factor.  :)  I'm equally caring
about the amount of spaghetti sauce on my shirt whether dining alone
or with others.

Chewing with one's mouth open, on the other hand

 Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:23:04 -0700

Me

For we all are individuals and cannot be lumped together in this 
particular context because of that.

Actually we can (I think), since I-consciousness is a trait, or at least 
that's how I see it. And in order for that "I" to be there, I've got to 
have something to contrast it with -- otherwise "I" has no meaning.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to listen in, it still 
makes a sound. Similarly, if I were the sole remaining human being on this 
planet (for whatever reason), I would still be me. And being a sentient life 
form - the kind that Data just loves scanning for - I would be aware my own 
existence and surrounding environment in ways that only a sentient being 
can. Moreover, I think this would apply in the case of not only being the 
sole *remaining* human, but being the *only* human in existence (again for 
whatever reason). For humans are sentient. Simple as that.

As for your take on it, I can certainly see where you're coming from, and 
can even agree on -'the presence of self-awareness, being almost by 
definition other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being 
behaves'- as I'm sure that the awareness of others would definitely change 
how an 'I-conscious' being behaves. A simple example of this would be 
someone observing proper table manners when dining with other people. 
Conversely, when eating alone, I doubt that many people give a rodent's 
posterior as to how much of their food ends up on their shirt as opposed to 
in their mouth (a little extreme, but you get the point). As far as your 
overall scheme though, I'm not buying. But that's just me...being an 
individual.

Basically all I'm suggesting is that while the gene drives evolution in 
animals lacking self-awareness, as soon as the "I" surfaces, as soon as 
visible signs of intelligence can be seen (and selected for by potential 
breeding mates), we're moving into Dawkinsian meme-space. Genes are no 
longer the sole driving factors in human evolution, in selection, or in 
determining what traits pass along. (After all we see traits other than the 
physical, such as tastes in music, etc.)
Yes, yes. I understand all of that. And all I'm suggesting is that the 'I' 
is limited to the 'I' in a very strict sense. Meaning that a generalization 
such as yours - while being accurate to some degree - cannot be 100% 
assured, as we have no idea what breeding choices individual people might 
make. Which you kinda stated by saying that potential breeding mates are 
selected for reasons other than tight-fitting jeans.

-Travis "genes" Edmunds
_
MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling 
get-togethers. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 8, 2004, at 2:22 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:

Any huge change in mankind would be suppressed by the
other 6 billion human beings.
So far that hasn't happened. Socially and technologically tremendous
changes have taken place in the last 200 years and not been suppressed
by the majority.
I am talking about _genetic_ changes
Oh, I know; that's why I also wrote:
However, an assumption that seems to exist here is that we (as a 
global civilization) will not really change very much, technologically 
or otherwise, over timespans that register on the evolutionary scale. 
Even the small, rapid changes you see in PE take place in considerably 
more time than h. sapiens has even existed.
That is, pulling plain old evolution into it as well.
The thing is, as I've mentioned before, that we cannot account simply 
genetic changes. Intelligence alters absolutely everything; we are 
currently on the cusp of modifying our own genome deliberately.

It is obvious, abundantly obvious, to me that social and intellectual 
changes are *every bit as crucial* to us to factor in when we're 
talking about our species' development. Because social trends, coupled 
with the technology necessary to alter -- or eradicate -- ourselves, 
utterly trump evolution.

So when discussing evolution in our species I tend to include other 
factors that might not be biologically there but that still exist; I 
suppose I side with Dawkins in this regard. His combined view of genes 
and memes is pretty powerful at describing the behavior of *all* life, 
including us.

Returning to the main point, though, evolution happens (I think) both 
gradually and with phases of rapid change. As such it is happening to 
us now, at least probably, but we don't realize it because we lack the 
historical depth. At most we've been recording history for, what, 20K 
years at most? And we've been around eight times longer than that, or 
thereabouts. We've only been systematically observing ourselves for 
maybe 600 or so years, starting with the Islamic Caliphates -- trying 
to extrapolate anything about trends based on the data available to us 
is a little like taking one second from a day and, using it, trying to 
determine what the previous five minutes had been like. Or what the 
next five minutes will contain. (Or one minute to five hours, one year 
to 300, etc.)

IOW we don't know enough to know what kinds of changes are taking 
place, and even if they happen rapidly a la punctuated equilibrium 
they'll still be so slow that we'll fail to recognize the emergent 
species until well after it's totally replaced h. sapiens. (One could 
argue that we are currently a product of such a punctuation and are 
*still* in the middle of it and evolving -- 160K years is *nothing* 
against the geological record.)

So I don't see us as we are now being necessarily a peak, nor the peak, 
nor even a cul-de-sac, and I feel reasonably safe in guessing that 
we'll continue for a while, sort of like how the dinosaurs have by 
evolving into birds. (So in that sense I guess I could say we're 
doomed, as a species, to extinction, but only because we'll continue 
evolving. The question is whether we'll retain our intelligence and 
civilization-building tendencies, or end up being weird naked 
big-headed apes squabbling over plantains in a ruined city mostly 
reclaimed by forest.)

-- WthmO
This email is a work of fiction. Any similarity between its contents 
and any truth, entire or partial, is purely coincidental and should not 
be misconstrued.
--

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Alberto Monteiro]

Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
>> Any huge change in mankind would be suppressed by the
>> other 6 billion human beings.
>
> So far that hasn't happened. Socially and technologically tremendous
> changes have taken place in the last 200 years and not been suppressed
> by the majority.
>
I am talking about _genetic_ changes

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[JDG]

At 11:27 AM 9/8/2004 -0400 Robert J. Chassell wrote:
>I did not misunderstand him or mistype; he was very clear.  But he may
>be wrong.

What I have always been taught is based on the following excerpt from the
Catholic Catechism:

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the
consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ
is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in
each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not
divide Christ.


For this reason, it is not necessary to receive Communion under both species.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 6, 2004, at 3:31 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:

From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Gene space arguments are fine if you're discussing creatures with 
no clear sense of self-awareness or consequences for actions, such 
as bacteria or tobacco company attorneys. Once you install a sense 
of "I", things change.
Keep in mind, that a sense of "I" is limited entirely to the "I".
No; it actually predicts "you" -- by distinguishing oneself from 
others, others must logically spring into existence.
That is, I don't think you can have an "I" in a vacuum. This means 
that the presence of self-awareness, being almost by definition 
other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being behaves.
That's all fine & dandy, but it still comes down to a particular 
'I-conscious' being, making individual decisions.
That's true, yeah.
For we all are individuals and cannot be lumped together in this 
particular context because of that.
Actually we can (I think), since I-consciousness is a trait, or at 
least that's how I see it. And in order for that "I" to be there, I've 
got to have something to contrast it with -- otherwise "I" has no 
meaning.

Basically all I'm suggesting is that while the gene drives evolution in 
animals lacking self-awareness, as soon as the "I" surfaces, as soon as 
visible signs of intelligence can be seen (and selected for by 
potential breeding mates), we're moving into Dawkinsian meme-space. 
Genes are no longer the sole driving factors in human evolution, in 
selection, or in determining what traits pass along. (After all we see 
traits other than the physical, such as tastes in music, etc.)

-- WthmO
I've never held an opinion.
I give them away freely.
--
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 1, 2004, at 6:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/31/2004 10:15:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But my  point was that in distinguishing oneself from the world, one 
has
already  defined the existence of a place called "the world" from 
which
one is  distinct, and any decisions one takes will have that in the
account. So  purely genetics-delimited behavioral definitions do not
wash with me,  especially where high intellect (primate, cetacian,
possibly mollusccan)  is present
[n.b. I mean cephalopod, not molluscan...]
But the consciousness you have just described is a purely animal one
possessed by many animals that we would not consider sensient.
I don't believe so; I was pretty specific about where I thought it 
existed. The list is really quite short:

1. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos.
2. Bottlenosed dolphins.
3. Giant squid and/or some octopus species.
The third is tentative, but cephalopods do seem to be pretty dang 
bright.

The consciousness present in apes is sufficient for them to produce 
language when taught to sign. If dolphins are not communicating 
complexly, then it's pretty hard for us to say we are either (just 
because we can't decode all the elements of a language doesn't mean it 
doesn't exist).

The ability  to
differentiatte self from non-self is critical to most (but not all 
animals).
Well, it depends on how you define "animal", perhaps. I'd say all 
mammals, reptiles, fish and amphibians, at least, are capable of 
understanding, at least on the limbic level, where they end and the 
predator begins. ;)

Consciousness is really what Damaso  calls "The
feeling of what happens', the ability to monitor the internal state  
of the
organism and see how it changes when exposed to things in the 
environment  or
its own actions (eating moving seeiong).
That's an interesting definition but I don't know for certain it's that 
simple.

One does not need to be sensient to
have this facility.
Possibly not, but one does have to be sentient to record it, compare it 
to prior states, and learn from it to understand possible future 
states.

As we  have become
more intelligent we come to believe that somehow our internal  reality 
is
dependent on self-awareness but this is  bogus.
I don't know about that either. Without a sense of time -- planning for 
the future by salting money into an IRA now, for instance -- we're 
doing something that affects our immediate reality *and* ideally will 
affect one that doesn't exist yet. None of that would be possible 
without self-awareness, it seems to me.

-- WthmO
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 1, 2004, at 3:04 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:

Humans are a peak in evolution, because we can't evolve further
except by artificial means.
Um, can you substantiate that, or is it strictly opinion?
AFAIK, it's the scienfic consensus that any huge and prosperous
population can't evolve, because evolving into another species
requires huge changes in a small population in a short interval of
time.
Depends whose consensus you pay attention to. ;) There's gradualism -- 
still -- and punctuated equilibrium -- and IIRC there's a synthesis, a 
sense that evolution can and does happen both ways.

However, an assumption that seems to exist here is that we (as a global 
civilization) will not really change very much, technologically or 
otherwise, over timespans that register on the evolutionary scale. Even 
the small, rapid changes you see in PE take place in considerably more 
time than h. sapiens has even existed.

I can't determine what means for change, artificial or otherwise, might 
be at our disposal in just 50 years -- but I also can't predict whether 
we'll continue our evident precarious stability; nor can anyone easily 
conclude that we will *exist* still in half a century.

For that reason I'm not sure I'd be sanguine about making absolute 
declarations of our species' evolutionary immutability.

Any huge change in mankind would be suppressed by the
other 6 billion human beings.
So far that hasn't happened. Socially and technologically tremendous 
changes have taken place in the last 200 years and not been suppressed 
by the majority.

Also, probably changing to a "better"
kind of humans might require spending lots of generations into a
"much worse" kind of human, and this can't happen now.
Ah, but I wasn't thinking of better or worse -- just different. That's 
how evolution works too. Changes may or may not cause a creature to be 
better suited to its environment; they might even be neutral from a 
survival point of view. But ideas such as better or worse simply don't 
apply.

-- WthmO
More fun than a bucket of live bait.
But not as much fun as a trailerful of raccoons.
--
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Robert J. Chassell]

Robert J. Chassell wrote:

>  I just talked with a former Dominican priest who prefaced his remarks
>  by saying that his knowledge is 30 years out of date, but then said
>
>* because of transubstantiation, the wine is the blood and
>  the bread is the flesh
>
>* but you may perform the sacrament with
>  either the wine
>  or the blood
>  or both

JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

I'm not sure if you misunderstood your Dominican friend, or if you
simply mistyped, but the former of the above is incorrect.  The
host is both fully the body and the blood of Christ.  Likewise,
the wine is both fully the body and the blood of Christ.

I did not misunderstand him or mistype; he was very clear.  But he may
be wrong.

My understanding is that the Catholic church employs an Aristotelian
physics.  In such a physics, as far as I understand, bread is flesh
and wine is blood.  The solid parallels the solid and the liquid
parallels the liquid.  

Moreover, if I remember rightly, the difference between a solid and a
liquid is fundamental, like the difference between Earth and Water,
but the difference between blood and wine is one of accidents.  Hence
the latter are easier to transubstantiate.

Since you may perform the sacrament with either the bread or the wine
or both, this understanding works fine.

--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Julia Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:11:58 -0500
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:57:54 -0230, Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> But would you recommend it (Harvest of Stars) for it's quality as a 
novel? Personally I thought
> it was a poor book.

It wasn't as good as the second in the series, which I read first.  If
I read a series out of order, I'm expecting the first one not to be
quite so good.
Why is that?
(I'd gotten the second one as a gift from a friend
who's recommended books that weren't so great in quality as novels,
but which explored some ideas new to me and those ideas were the basis
for recommendation.)
I figured as much from your original comments. I was just wondering why you 
never mentioned that the book was bad as well.

It beats a lot of pulp, certainly, but it's not in the league with any
of the recent Hugo winners, how's that?  :)
I'll take it.
-Travis
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Julia Randolph]

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:57:54 -0230, Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >From: Julia Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
> >Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:46:59 -0500
> >
> > > On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> > > I don't really buy the idea of someone becoming "immortal" by
> > > putting his consciousness into a machine. There'd be immediate
> > > divergence which would only grow over time; in essence you'd have two
> > > distinct entities in very short order. (Oh, you could kill the body --
> > > but that would end the distinct consciousness in the body. I don't
> > > think there's one "essence" allotted to a person, IOW.)
> >
> >Poul Anderson explored this some in his series beginning with _Harvest
> >the Stars_.  I recommend it.  (Not just for that, but for other
> >"divergence" issues.)
> 
> But would you recommend it for it's quality as a novel? Personally I thought
> it was a poor book.

It wasn't as good as the second in the series, which I read first.  If
I read a series out of order, I'm expecting the first one not to be
quite so good.  (I'd gotten the second one as a gift from a friend
who's recommended books that weren't so great in quality as novels,
but which explored some ideas new to me and those ideas were the basis
for recommendation.)

It beats a lot of pulp, certainly, but it's not in the league with any
of the recent Hugo winners, how's that?  :)

 Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Julia Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:46:59 -0500
> On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> I don't really buy the idea of someone becoming "immortal" by
> putting his consciousness into a machine. There'd be immediate
> divergence which would only grow over time; in essence you'd have two
> distinct entities in very short order. (Oh, you could kill the body --
> but that would end the distinct consciousness in the body. I don't
> think there's one "essence" allotted to a person, IOW.)
Poul Anderson explored this some in his series beginning with _Harvest
the Stars_.  I recommend it.  (Not just for that, but for other
"divergence" issues.)
But would you recommend it for it's quality as a novel? Personally I thought 
it was a poor book.

-Travis "Anson Guthrie" Edmunds
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Medevac helicopters Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Julia Thompson]

Nick Arnett wrote:

> Speaking of emegency medicine, this weekend we saw about the worst that
> kids playing football has to offer.  One of my twin grand-daughters is a
> "mascot" for a Pop Warner team -- sort of a junior cheerleader.  Not
> something we look with pleasure upon, as it brings up images of
> Jon-Benet Ramsey, too much competition and concern about appearance for
> a five-year-old.  At her game on Saturday, one of the kids -- these are
> jr. high students -- didn't move after getting hit.  About 15 minutes
> later, we were watching an medevac helicopter land on the field to take
> him to the trauma center at U.C. Davis with a spinal cord injury.  And
> my son-in-law wants (or at least wanted -- he wasn't there) our grandson
> to start playing football when he's eight next year.

Last time a medevac helicopter was anywhere near my neighborhood, it had
nothing to do with football, and everything to do with machinery causing
something nasty to happen.  A branch was shot about 18" into a
neighbor's body cavity, through the groin area, and he pulled it out.

If something is shot into your body and is still there, don't try to
pull it out.  If it's hit something major, you could bleed to death
before help arrives, or do some more damage in the removal, whereas if
you just leave it, they can get you to a trauma center and deal with its
removal and the consequences there.

If the firefighter neighbor hadn't answered the call and called for the
helicopter as soon as he saw the guy, we'd be out one heckuva good
neighbor.

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Keith Henson]

At 08:13 PM 06/09/04 -0500, "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

snip
Talked to Father Patrick about both these subjects.
 He says that if there is any doubt about a dying persons status,
anyone can baptise.
Even Satan himself.
My wife and I were married in Timothy Leary's house, but that's *nothing* 
compared to being baptized by Satan!

Keith Henson
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Nick Arnett]

Robert Seeberger wrote:
Talked to Father Patrick about both these subjects.
 He says that if there is any doubt about a dying persons status,
anyone can baptise.
Back when I was a paramedic, oh so many (20+) years ago, part of the 
training was how to baptize.  IIRC, it was part of the training 
associated with childbirth.

Even Satan himself.
I think he was my partner on the ambulance sometimes... ;-)
Speaking of emegency medicine, this weekend we saw about the worst that 
kids playing football has to offer.  One of my twin grand-daughters is a 
"mascot" for a Pop Warner team -- sort of a junior cheerleader.  Not 
something we look with pleasure upon, as it brings up images of 
Jon-Benet Ramsey, too much competition and concern about appearance for 
a five-year-old.  At her game on Saturday, one of the kids -- these are 
jr. high students -- didn't move after getting hit.  About 15 minutes 
later, we were watching an medevac helicopter land on the field to take 
him to the trauma center at U.C. Davis with a spinal cord injury.  And 
my son-in-law wants (or at least wanted -- he wasn't there) our grandson 
to start playing football when he's eight next year.

I wasn't especially thrilled to have our granddaughter and her twin see 
all that at her second game ever... they're only five.  But we're glad 
we were there to be with them.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Robert Seeberger]

JDG wrote:
> At 02:42 PM 8/19/2004 +0200 Jean-Marc Chaton wrote:
>>> To the best of my knowledge, that is not true only an ordained
>>> priest is capable of saying Mass in the Catholic Church.
>>>
>>> JDG
>>
>> I think everyone is able to christen everyone if no priest isn't
>> reachable.
>
> That is correct.   In fact, I believe that even an atheist can
> baptize! (in the most extreme circumstances, of course.)
>
> There is no requirement for a Baptism to occur in a Mass.

Talked to Father Patrick about both these subjects.
 He says that if there is any doubt about a dying persons status,
anyone can baptise.
Even Satan himself.

As far as the desert island scenario goes, when there is a definate
need anyone *could* say mass and celebrate communion and pass out a
substitute eucharist. People could even take turns at the role of
priest. Ther might be some question as to whether transubstatiation
actually occurs, but you would be avoiding the sin of missing mass and
your communion with God.


xponent
Built In Flexibility Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Robert Seeberger]

JDG wrote:
> At 08:02 PM 8/24/2004 + Robert J. Chassell wrote:
>> I just talked with a former Dominican priest who prefaced his
remarks
>> by saying that his knowledge is 30 years out of date, but then said
>>
>>  * because of transubstantiation, the wine is the blood and
>>the bread is the flesh
>>
>>  * but you may perform the sacrament with
>>either the wine
>>or the blood
>>or both
>
> I'm not sure if you misunderstood your Dominican friend, or if you
> simply mistyped, but the former of the above is incorrect.   The
host
> is both fully the body and the blood of Christ.   Likewise, the wine
> is both fully the body and the blood of Christ.
>

I talked to Father Patrick at the hospital about this back when the
discussion was current.
His explanation echos the info John gives exactly, and that is the way
I recall things as well.

xponent
Dominos Vobiscum Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[William T Goodall]

On 7 Sep 2004, at 1:13 am, JDG wrote:
At 08:02 PM 8/24/2004 + Robert J. Chassell wrote:
I just talked with a former Dominican priest who prefaced his remarks
by saying that his knowledge is 30 years out of date, but then said
 * because of transubstantiation, the wine is the blood and
   the bread is the flesh
 * but you may perform the sacrament with
   either the wine
   or the blood
   or both
I'm not sure if you misunderstood your Dominican friend, or if you 
simply
mistyped, but the former of the above is incorrect.   The host is both
fully the body and the blood of Christ.   Likewise, the wine is both 
fully
the body and the blood of Christ.

LOL
You religious weirdos are so ridiculous! Listen to yourself! What a 
pile of crap!

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run 
out of things they can do with UNIX." - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 
1984.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[JDG]

At 08:02 PM 8/24/2004 + Robert J. Chassell wrote:
>I just talked with a former Dominican priest who prefaced his remarks
>by saying that his knowledge is 30 years out of date, but then said
>
>  * because of transubstantiation, the wine is the blood and 
>the bread is the flesh
>
>  * but you may perform the sacrament with
>either the wine
>or the blood
>or both

I'm not sure if you misunderstood your Dominican friend, or if you simply
mistyped, but the former of the above is incorrect.   The host is both
fully the body and the blood of Christ.   Likewise, the wine is both fully
the body and the blood of Christ.

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[JDG]

At 01:10 PM 8/19/2004 -0700 kerry miller wrote:
>
>--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At 04:34 PM 8/18/2004 + Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>> >JDG wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Canon 926 of the Code of Canon Law prescribes, “In the Eucharistic
>> >> celebration, in accordancewith the ancient tradition of the Latin
>> Church,
>> >> the priest is to use unleavened bread wherever he celebrates
>> Mass.”
>> >>
>> >No exception? I heard that the RC Church allowed _many_ exceptions
>> >to the canon in extreme situations, for example, in the case of a
>> bunch
>> >of people isolated in an island, where one of them could take priest
>> >functions.
>> 
>> To the best of my knowledge, that is not true only an ordained
>> priest
>> is capable of saying Mass in the Catholic Church.
>
>John, do you know how Catholic law/practice/belief handle the "2
>gathered in my name == church" bit?  ...and would it apply in a
>situation like this?

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus is spiritually present whenever two
or more are gathered in his name.   To the best of my knowledge of Catholic
teaching, only priests have the power to perform the miracle of
transsubstantiaion and bring Jesus into physical presence among us.

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[JDG]

At 02:42 PM 8/19/2004 +0200 Jean-Marc Chaton wrote:
>> To the best of my knowledge, that is not true only an ordained priest
>> is capable of saying Mass in the Catholic Church.
>> 
>> JDG
>
>I think everyone is able to christen everyone if no priest isn't
>reachable.

That is correct.   In fact, I believe that even an atheist can baptize!
(in the most extreme circumstances, of course.)

There is no requirement for a Baptism to occur in a Mass.

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:57:22 -0700
On Aug 26, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:

From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Gene space arguments are fine if you're discussing creatures with no 
clear sense of self-awareness or consequences for actions, such as 
bacteria or tobacco company attorneys. Once you install a sense of "I", 
things change.
Keep in mind, that a sense of "I" is limited entirely to the "I".
No; it actually predicts "you" -- by distinguishing oneself from others, 
others must logically spring into existence.
That is, I don't think you can have an "I" in a vacuum. This means that the 
presence of self-awareness, being almost by definition other-awareness as 
well, changes how an I-conscious being behaves.
That's all fine & dandy, but it still comes down to a particular 
'I-conscious' being, making individual decisions. For we all are individuals 
and cannot be lumped together in this particular context because of that.

-Travis
_
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen 
Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rape (was: The Mercies of The Vatican)

[Keith Henson]

At 04:37 PM 04/09/04 -0700, Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
I agree that rape is certainly not a "political act,"
but if it was *only* about procreation then no child,
man or older (i.e. post-menopausal) woman would ever
be raped.
snip
That's not actually the case.  Evolution has done the best it could, but 
the resultant psychological traits have a bell curve distribution.  I.e., 
to the extent there is a bias for men generally preferring woman at the 
peak of their reproductive potential, the mix of genes alone will cause 
those out on the tails of the curve to be attracted to children and older 
women.  And in fact, what is the record for the youngest and oldest human 
female reproducing?

On top of this you get imprinting like experiences, and well known gene and 
environmental effects where male sexual orientation is to males rather than 
females.

Just because behavior is driven by evolved psychological traits that *most 
of the time* in hunter gatherer tribes result in reproduction does not mean 
that the mechanisms are anything like perfect.  They only had to work 
enough of the time to get into the next generation, and some combinations 
of genes (traits) should be expected to fail.

Keith Henson

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Rape (was: The Mercies of The Vatican)

[Deborah Harrell]

I wrote:

> Rape is about humiliation, power and by-the-way
> sexual
> gratification.  It is the thrill of the forbidden
> hunt
> and 'substitution kill.'  It is the mark of the
> viciously uncaring, overweeningly arrogant, or
> disgustingly deviant.  In the case of child incest,
> the perpetrator is pathetically inadequate
> emotionally, and unable to deal with another adult
> on intimate terms.

Thought, with a thread & species cross-over: my
viewpoint is that of the 'prey;' the viewpoint that
rape is about sex comes from one of the gender of
'predator'...

Also, I don't think that, as has been posted
previously, 'all men are potential rapists.' 
*Seducers,* oh yes, but not rapists.  It's rather like
saying 'all parents are potential child abusers.'  All
parents get angry, yes, and might for a nanosecond
think of smashing a child, but most have the ability
to throttle that thought a-borning, and behave
responsibly.  To choose reasonable, adult behavior.

Debbi
Predator Vs. Prey: Well, Technically, Cape Buffalo Are
Also Prey... Maru




__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Rape (was: The Mercies of The Vatican)

[Deborah Harrell]

I meant to respond to an earlier thread WRT this
topic, but got sidetracked, so...

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> It is also the reason that
> Susan Brownmueller's theory 
> that rape is a political act to keep women down,
> that it is about power rather 
> than sex seems kind of silly. Why would the rapist
> risk jail or worse to 
> advance male dominance? If it is about power rather
> than sex why are rapists almost 
> always young men and rape victims young women? Rape
> is about sex and it is as 
> Damon points out part of the male drive to procreate
> by hook or crook. 

I agree that rape is certainly not a "political act,"
but if it was *only* about procreation then no child,
man or older (i.e. post-menopausal) woman would ever
be raped.  Even if it was *only* about sex, here and
probably in most of the developed world, any guy can
get sex if he has the money to pay a hooker.  (I don't
know the actual going rates, but have heard that as
little as $50, or less, will suffice in some cases.) 
If a guy has _some_ degree of chutzpah, charisma,
humor, deception or good looks, he stands a chance to
'get some' from a bar encounter.  And 'Rosie' is
available to all!

Rape is about humiliation, power and by-the-way sexual
gratification.  It is the thrill of the forbidden hunt
and 'substitution kill.'  It is the mark of the
viciously uncaring, overweeningly arrogant, or
disgustingly deviant.  In the case of child incest,
the perpetrator is pathetically inadequate
emotionally, and unable to deal with another adult on
intimate terms.

Stats:
-1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced a rape or attempted
rape. (2000)
-Victims of rape and sexual assault report that in
nearly 3 out of 4 incidents, the offender was somebody
they knew.
-Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or
boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other
relatives. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994. Violence
by Intimates. Bureau of Justice Statistics. )
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ProjectSafe/statistics.html

-15% of rape victims are younger than 12
Lawrence Greenfeld, Bureau of Justice Statistics
"Sex Offenses and Offenders" (1997) 
-29% of rape victims are 12-17 years old 
-Convicted child molesters who abused girls had an
average of 52 victims each. Men who molested boys had
an astonishing average of 150 victims.
(In a study funded by the National Institute of Mental
Health; Dr. Gene G. Abel, Emory University)
-29% of rape victims were younger than 12.
("Rape in America," 1992 - Nat'l Crime Victims
Research & Treatment Center; Medical College of South
Carolina; "One of the things that surprised us was
that rape in America is a tragedy of youth." -
Professor Dean Kilpatrick, co-author)
-1 in 3-4 girls is sexually abused before age 18. 
-1 in 6-8 boys is sexually assaulted by age 18. 
http://www.childlures.com/research/statistics.asp
[NOTE: this is a private group, so some of the numbers
could be skewed, particularly if self-surveys were
used (I'd guess that a victim of child abuse would be
more willing to answer a survey about it than someone
who was not).  Another confounding factor, I presume,
is teens/young folk who thought they wanted to have
sex, then later panic'd and thought they didn't
actually consent.]

About 1/4 of the way down the page of this U.S.
Department of Justice site is a table re: violent
crime, broken down by age.  Victims of rape/sexual
assault (entire range not typed here), by percentage:
Age 12-14:  8%
15-17: 12%
18-21: 21%
... 50-64:  2%
65+  :  1%

-Except for homicide data provided by the Uniform
Crime Reports, the tables in this report include data
from the redesigned National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) for 1992, 1993, and 1994.  The NCVS
obtains information about crimes, including incidents
not reported to police, from a continuous, nationally
representative sample of households in the United
States. Approximately 50,000 individuals age 12 or
older are interviewed for the survey annually.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/apvsvc.txt

I have heard the term "rape fantasies" tossed about -
none of my women friends with whom I've discussed this
(admittedly a miniscule and unscientific sampling)
have concocted such.

Debbi  
{...who pleads the Fifth WRT _seduction_ fantasies...}



___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Bemmzim]

 
In a message dated 8/31/2004 10:15:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But my  point was that in distinguishing oneself from the world, one has 
already  defined the existence of a place called "the world" from which 
one is  distinct, and any decisions one takes will have that in the 
account. So  purely genetics-delimited behavioral definitions do not 
wash with me,  especially where high intellect (primate, cetacian, 
possibly mollusccan)  is present


But the consciousness you have just described is a purely animal one  
possessed by many animals that we would not consider sensient.  The ability  to 
differentiatte self from non-self is critical to most (but not all animals).  Even 
a frog won't eat its own tail. Consciousness is really what Damaso  calls "The 
feeling of what happens', the ability to monitor the internal state  of the 
organism and see how it changes when exposed to things in the environment  or 
its own actions (eating moving seeiong). One does not need to be sensient to  
have this facility. Emotions are some of the things that the the  
proto-consciousness reads. All of these things are complete biological. As we  have 
become 
more intelligent we come to believe that somehow our internal  reality is 
dependent on self-awareness but this is  bogus.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 8/31/2004 10:41:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Experimentally, there is no such thing as an "I": take a healthy  person,
cut the brain in half, removing all communication between the  two
hemispheres, and you end up with _two_ different personalities,  each
one of them remembers being the former "I". I imagine that if it  were
possible to keep cutting with surviving remains we would get  other
smaller versions of "I".
 
This is not true. First there are comunications below the cortex that are  
maintained even if you sever the corpus callosum (major connections betweenn the 
 hemispheres). Many of these connections are at the level of the upper brain 
stem  and thalamus, where all sensory input is "compiled". In addition split 
brain  people do not act like two different people. For the most part they act 
like  everyone else. It takes sophisticated paradigns to show the problems in  
communications between the hemispheres. 




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Russell Chapman]

Alberto Monteiro wrote:
AFAIK, it's the scienfic consensus that any huge and prosperous 
population can't evolve, because evolving into another species
requires huge changes in a small population in a short interval of
time. Any huge change in mankind would be suppressed by the
other 6 billion human beings. Also, probably changing to a "better"
kind of humans might require spending lots of generations into a
"much worse" kind of human, and this can't happen now.
In global terms, isn't the human population quite small?
There are plenty of fish, insect, and arachnid populations which far 
exceed human populations as individual species, and are for breeding 
purposes contiguous, but they still manage to diversify.

Or is the K/R raising differences that affect the spread of genetic chnages?
Cheers
Russell C.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Julia Randolph]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:58:34 +, Alberto Monteiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Land wrote:
> >
> >> Humans are a peak in evolution, because we can't evolve further
> >> except by artificial means. The saber-tooth tiger was also a peak
> >> in evolution, and look at what happened to them.
> >
> > Humans are *a* peak in evolution, but not necessarily *the* peak.
> >
> Exactly what I wrote, as there can be no two "the" peak, and I
> mentioned two peaks :-P
> 
> Alberto Monteiro

Well, a "peak" could be seen as a "local maximum", and you could have
a number of "local maximums" and one "maximum" that would be "the"
peak.

Kind of like some mountains.

 Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Alberto Monteiro]

Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
>> Humans are a peak in evolution, because we can't evolve further
>> except by artificial means.
>
> Um, can you substantiate that, or is it strictly opinion?
>
AFAIK, it's the scienfic consensus that any huge and prosperous 
population can't evolve, because evolving into another species
requires huge changes in a small population in a short interval of
time. Any huge change in mankind would be suppressed by the
other 6 billion human beings. Also, probably changing to a "better"
kind of humans might require spending lots of generations into a
"much worse" kind of human, and this can't happen now.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dave Land wrote:
>
>> Humans are a peak in evolution, because we can't evolve further
>> except by artificial means. The saber-tooth tiger was also a peak
>> in evolution, and look at what happened to them.
>
> Humans are *a* peak in evolution, but not necessarily *the* peak.
>
Exactly what I wrote, as there can be no two "the" peak, and I
mentioned two peaks :-P

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Jean-Marc Chaton]

* Julia Randolph [Tue, 31/08/2004 at 22:46 -0500]
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:14:20 -0700, Warren Ockrassa
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> > 
> > > I imagine that if it were
> > > possible to keep cutting with surviving remains we would get other
> > > smaller versions of "I".
> > 
> > I'm sure you're correct. This is actually one reason I was so intrigued
> > by _Kiln People_ -- a sort of energetic resonance being passed into
> > clay, and then "inloaded" (before it had too much time to digress into
> > its own consciousness) is an interesting idea. If you haven't read the
> > book you might want to. ;)
> > 
> > It's why I don't really buy the idea of someone becoming "immortal" by
> > putting his consciousness into a machine. There'd be immediate
> > divergence which would only grow over time; in essence you'd have two
> > distinct entities in very short order. (Oh, you could kill the body --
> > but that would end the distinct consciousness in the body. I don't
> > think there's one "essence" allotted to a person, IOW.)
> 
> Poul Anderson explored this some in his series beginning with _Harvest
> the Stars_.  I recommend it.  (Not just for that, but for other
> "divergence" issues.)
> 

Robert Sawyer 's Terminal Experiment also is worth reading exploring the
idea.




-- 
Jean-Marc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Sep 1, 2004, at 5:43 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Paul wrote:
Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but does that mean that
you view humans as the ultimate peak of evolution?
Or are we just a step on an ongoing path?
Humans are a peak in evolution, because we can't evolve further
except by artificial means.
Um, can you substantiate that, or is it strictly opinion?
-- WthmO
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was,Re:
The Mercies of The Vatican


> Dan wrote:
>
> > I realize that this involves a switch in worldview because most of us
> > were taught a convenient fiction in school.  I certainly believed that
> > the
> > Nazi's had a police state, even for the Ayrians, from the start.  I
> > thought the Holocaust was very secret.  But now, I accept the evidence
> > that Nazi
> > Germany was not a police state and the Holocaust was not all that
hidden.
>
> Even if the Holocaust wasn't hidden, was there a mechanism for protest?
> Could someone have voiced their objections with impunity.

There is documentation of people refusing assignments to the death camp
with impunity.

>Written a
> letter to the editor?  Staged a protest?  The idea seems rather ludicrous
> to me especially in view of the fact that their country was at war
> assumedly with the rights restrictions that are normally present in such
> cases.

They could have done as much as the French did.  They could have done as
much as the average citizen of the USSR did under Communist oppression.  It
is clear that  Hitler was interested in public opinion, and desired to keep
popular support.  If there was a general discomfort with the idea of death
camps, then they could have at least argued that workers shouldn't be
wasted...and that the Jews needed to be employed making munitions.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dave Land]

On Sep 1, 2004, at 5:43 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Andrew Paul wrote:
Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but does that mean that
you view humans as the ultimate peak of evolution?
Or are we just a step on an ongoing path?
Humans are a peak in evolution, because we can't evolve further
except by artificial means. The saber-tooth tiger was also a peak
in evolution, and look at what happened to them.
Humans are *a* peak in evolution, but not necessarily *the* peak.
Dave
Liberal Rubbish Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Alberto Monteiro]

Andrew Paul wrote:
>
> Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but does that mean that
> you view humans as the ultimate peak of evolution?
> Or are we just a step on an ongoing path?
>
Humans are a peak in evolution, because we can't evolve further
except by artificial means. The saber-tooth tiger was also a peak
in evolution, and look at what happened to them.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 12:33 AM
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican


> Warren wrote:
>
> > That is, I don't think you can have an "I" in a vacuum.
>
> In fact, I think your I's pop right out in a vacuum...
>

Just as shown in that documentary Total Recall.



xponent
Bugout Maru
rob


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Andrew Paul]

> From: Andrew Paul 
 
> > From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 
> > Moral actions that help "the other" are not evolutionarily 
> > favored.  Other primates use rape as a tool of dominance.  
> > That isn't moral.  Yet, it must be favored for at least some 
> > primates because it happens.
> 



For the answer to these and other fascinating questions,
read the posts that I had not yet got to when I typed.

Andrew

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Andrew Paul]

> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 

> Moral actions that help "the other" are not evolutionarily 
> favored.  Other primates use rape as a tool of dominance.  
> That isn't moral.  Yet, it must be favored for at least some 
> primates because it happens.


Is that necessarily so?
Doesn't evolution progress by making mistakes as well as getting
it right(well right for the current circumstances)? 
Couldn't primate rape be an experiment that might ultimately fail?

Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but does that mean that
you view humans as the ultimate peak of evolution?
Or are we just a step on an ongoing path?

And why isn't helping others perhaps favoured?
I guess it depends on where you look at it from,
it may not be for the individual (or maybe it is)
but perhaps its good for the race, or maybe life in general,
in its contest with our big cold universe.

Andrew


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Doug Pensinger]

Warren wrote:
That is, I don't think you can have an "I" in a vacuum.
In fact, I think your I's pop right out in a vacuum...
--
Doug
headed for the hills
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Julia Randolph]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:14:20 -0700, Warren Ockrassa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> 
> > I imagine that if it were
> > possible to keep cutting with surviving remains we would get other
> > smaller versions of "I".
> 
> I'm sure you're correct. This is actually one reason I was so intrigued
> by _Kiln People_ -- a sort of energetic resonance being passed into
> clay, and then "inloaded" (before it had too much time to digress into
> its own consciousness) is an interesting idea. If you haven't read the
> book you might want to. ;)
> 
> It's why I don't really buy the idea of someone becoming "immortal" by
> putting his consciousness into a machine. There'd be immediate
> divergence which would only grow over time; in essence you'd have two
> distinct entities in very short order. (Oh, you could kill the body --
> but that would end the distinct consciousness in the body. I don't
> think there's one "essence" allotted to a person, IOW.)

Poul Anderson explored this some in his series beginning with _Harvest
the Stars_.  I recommend it.  (Not just for that, but for other
"divergence" issues.)

 Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:

Keep in mind, that a sense of "I" is limited entirely to the "I".
No; it actually predicts "you" -- by distinguishing oneself from
others, others must logically spring into existence.
That is, I don't think you can have an "I" in a vacuum. This means 
that
the presence of self-awareness, being almost by definition
other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being behaves.
Gene-motivated actions aren't the sole deciding factor any more.

Experimentally, there is no such thing as an "I": take a healthy 
person,
cut the brain in half, removing all communication between the two
hemispheres, and you end up with _two_ different personalities, each
one of them remembers being the former "I".
I seem to recall something along those lines, yes. Says something 
pretty interesting about the nature of consciousness. Mostly (I think) 
that it's not a constant state; that in order for consciousness to 
exist it must always be changing. Memory appears to give us a sense of 
continuity, but the process itself seems like soap in bathwater: The 
harder you try to get hold of it the faster it squirts away.

I imagine that if it were
possible to keep cutting with surviving remains we would get other
smaller versions of "I".
I'm sure you're correct. This is actually one reason I was so intrigued 
by _Kiln People_ -- a sort of energetic resonance being passed into 
clay, and then "inloaded" (before it had too much time to digress into 
its own consciousness) is an interesting idea. If you haven't read the 
book you might want to. ;)

It's why I don't really buy the idea of someone becoming "immortal" by 
putting his consciousness into a machine. There'd be immediate 
divergence which would only grow over time; in essence you'd have two 
distinct entities in very short order. (Oh, you could kill the body -- 
but that would end the distinct consciousness in the body. I don't 
think there's one "essence" allotted to a person, IOW.)

But my point was that in distinguishing oneself from the world, one has 
already defined the existence of a place called "the world" from which 
one is distinct, and any decisions one takes will have that in the 
account. So purely genetics-delimited behavioral definitions do not 
wash with me, especially where high intellect (primate, cetacian, 
possibly mollusccan) is present.

-- WthmO
There is no such thing as "mad vegetable disease."
--
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Alberto Monteiro]

Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind, that a sense of "I" is limited entirely to the "I".
>
> No; it actually predicts "you" -- by distinguishing oneself from
> others, others must logically spring into existence.
>
> That is, I don't think you can have an "I" in a vacuum. This means that
> the presence of self-awareness, being almost by definition
> other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being behaves.
> Gene-motivated actions aren't the sole deciding factor any more.
>
Experimentally, there is no such thing as an "I": take a healthy person,
cut the brain in half, removing all communication between the two
hemispheres, and you end up with _two_ different personalities, each
one of them remembers being the former "I". I imagine that if it were
possible to keep cutting with surviving remains we would get other
smaller versions of "I".

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 26, 2004, at 6:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/25/2004 9:31:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

That's not evolved; the only reason one would have guilt after rape
would be if one believed it to be a bad thing. Guilt is a
socially-created phenomenon.
Ah but here you are wrong. Guilt serves a very useful purpose in social
animals that use recipricol altruism. It is an internal and largely 
unconscious
talleying up of whether one's actions are likley to be viewed as 
reasonable by
other members of the society.
But that underscores my point of view. Assuming social rules change, 
and they do, guilt definitions change as well. Not wanting to be 
outcast from the group is surely older than primates (think small 
huddling rodentlike creatures); the idea of guilt over an action that 
is *socially proscribed* is really an extension of the desire not to be 
outcast. But the action itself is determined by society to be 
acceptable or not, so the presence of guilt (and the degree to which 
it's felt, and the ways in which it is to be ameliorated or addressed) 
are also social phenomena.

Guilt is an internal sense of whether one is
behaving correctly and therefore it is a inhibitor of selfish behavior.
No; it's an inhibitor of behavior that one's peers would find 
objectionable.

-- WthmO
This email is being broadcast with a 5-second delay.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 26, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:

From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Gene space arguments are fine if you're discussing creatures with no 
clear sense of self-awareness or consequences for actions, such as 
bacteria or tobacco company attorneys. Once you install a sense of 
"I", things change.
Keep in mind, that a sense of "I" is limited entirely to the "I".
No; it actually predicts "you" -- by distinguishing oneself from 
others, others must logically spring into existence.

That is, I don't think you can have an "I" in a vacuum. This means that 
the presence of self-awareness, being almost by definition 
other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being behaves. 
Gene-motivated actions aren't the sole deciding factor any more.

-- WthmO
This email is a work of fiction. Any similarity between its contents 
and any truth, entire or partial, is purely coincidental and should not 
be misconstrued.
--

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan wrote:
I realize that this involves a switch in worldview because most of us 
were taught a convenient fiction in school.  I certainly believed that 
the
Nazi's had a police state, even for the Ayrians, from the start.  I 
thought the Holocaust was very secret.  But now, I accept the evidence 
that Nazi
Germany was not a police state and the Holocaust was not all that hidden.
Even if the Holocaust wasn't hidden, was there a mechanism for protest?  
Could someone have voiced their objections with impunity.  Written a 
letter to the editor?  Staged a protest?  The idea seems rather ludicrous 
to me especially in view of the fact that their country was at war 
assumedly with the rights restrictions that are normally present in such 
cases.

I'm not taking sides, BTW, but I'd be interested in further reading on 
this if anyone has a reference.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten
No deal. Your basic presumption is flawed. Not every German 
during the 
holocaust was automatically and without exception a 
participant in the 
holocaust and a jew murdering nazi. Since already this 
premise for your 
insults towards me is false, your insults, i.e. that I'm 
excusing/denying the holocaust and thus must be a nazi, is, 
since it is 
based on this premise, also false.
   

If I can interject into this private flame-war , I think what
might be going on here is a difference in terms.  If I'm
interpreting correctly, for Sonja, if there is a significant
minority (even if it is only a few percent) who would fit her
criteria.  But for Gautam, that's just rounding error.  It's close
enough to everybody.
Given that, you two are never going to agree.  Of course, you didn't
need *me* to tell you that...
What are you trying to do? Extinguish flames... How we ever get a decent 
flamewar if people insist on interjecting reasonably? ;o)

But honest, your effort is appreciated. By me anyway. I've given up on 
discussion with Gautam. Still working on a respons to Dan though.

Sonja :o)
GCU: Entirely reasonable
ROU: Let's argue numbers then
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[William T Goodall]

On 30 Aug 2004, at 3:41 am, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No deal. Your basic presumption is flawed. Not every German during the
holocaust was automatically and without exception a participant in the
holocaust and a jew murdering nazi.
Not every one, probably not.  But, it was common knowledge and there 
was no
indication of public horror at it.  As Gautam said, it wasn't 
accidental;
it was deliberate policy from on high.
And the dangers of a lack of cultural diversity. Germany was a modern 
European Christian nation after all.  It was like the Stanford Prison 
Experiment on a national scale. With few dissenting voices things went 
very wrong.

We all like to think that if we were a 'guard' in the SPE we would take 
a stand and behave correctly (and I, of course, would) but that's not 
what the experiment showed...

Alternatively the entire German nation could be intrinsically Evil.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it.
-- Donald E. Knuth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Erik Reuter]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 09:41:49PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> Dan M.
> 
> Dan M.
> 
> Dan M.

It is very clear when Dan decides to escalate! :-)


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re:
The Mercies of The Vatican


> Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> >Sonja, I'll make you a deal.  If you stop making
> >excuses for people who participated in the Holocaust,
> >I'll stop calling you on it when you do it.
> >
> >
> >
> No deal. Your basic presumption is flawed. Not every German during the
> holocaust was automatically and without exception a participant in the
> holocaust and a jew murdering nazi.

Not every one, probably not.  But, it was common knowledge and there was no
indication of public horror at it.  As Gautam said, it wasn't accidental;
it was deliberate policy from on high.

I've read your arguements on this type of subject for a while, and I've
seen a pattern that I'd like some feedback on.  Consistancy, you lump all
bad outcomes together.  What happened in Abu Ghraib was wrong.  People
should be punished; and that includes officers who were derelict in their
duty to provide the proper environment.  You saw my opinion expressed in my
recent post.

Having said that; there is no comparison with this and genocide.  One was,
IMHO, a criminal neglect to establish a proper prison environment, where
the long established procedure was not enforced.  The second was a
systematic, well planned slaughter of millions of innocent humans that
gained momentum as new, more efficent murder techniques were developed.
Information about this, according to documentation from the time, was
readily available to the average citizen.

In the US, there was a hue and cry about the crimes.  It may very well be
that we will not sufficiently punish people far enough up the chain of
command, but it is also clear that a number of pro-military people in the
US are mad as hell that things were not done right.

I have not seen an acknowledgement of the multiple order of magnitude in
the difference between these two things.  To me, its like comparing a
mother who yells at her kids when she shouldn't because she is upset about
something else and a mother who burns her kids with a cigarette.  Both are
wrong, but the order of magnitude of the wrongs are enormously different.

It seems to me that you differ with this idea.  Bad is bad, wrong is wrong,
and there is no worse.

The difficutly with this is that it lumps all non perfect things together.
I can't see the validity of this.  Let me give a personal example.  My
Zambian daughter was stopped with two of her friends for DWB (driving while
black) in the Woodlands. It followed the typical DWB pattern, cop car is
beside a car, sees that black people are in it, slows down and follows the
car for a while and then pulls it over.  They were asked why they were in
the Woodlands (which has very few blacks).  After 10 minutes, they were
given a verbal warning for one of two liscence plate lights being out, and
were allowed to go on their way.

I realize that there is racism in the police up here.  I realize that the
association of blacks with criminals results in unarmed black and Hispanic
kids being shot from time to time.  One or two die in an average year this
way.  It is wrong, and I feel we need to adress this.

Yet, this is nothing like what I would feel if I knew Neli was in Sudan.
There, there is a deliberate policy, given a wink and a nod by the UN, to
commit genocide against the black majority by the Arab minority that runs
the country.  If she were there, there would be a good chance that she
would be killed.  In Houston, there is a small chance; its still too big
mind you, but it is small.

>From what I've read of your post over the years, I have gotten the opinion
that until we clean up our act concerning the racism in Houston, we have no
right to comment on the genocide in the Sudan.  People dying is people
dying, so make sure your own house is in perfect order before pointing out
problems in another's house.

The problem I see with that is that humans are not perfect.  We will never
have perfect justice.  Thus, if perfect justice is required for genocide to
be stopped, it will never be stopped.  Its as if we cannot stop a mother
from burning her children until we never ever parent imperfectly.

If this is not your view, then it would be helpful for you to clarify it.
For example, a contrast and compare between the magnitude of AG and the
Holocaust would be helpful.  Either data that refutes the documented claim
that the Holocaust was common knowledge in Germany, or acceptance of that
would also be helpful.

I realize that this involves a switch in worldview because most of us were
taught a convenient fiction in school.  I certainly believed that the
Nazi's had a police state, even for th

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[William T Goodall]

On 30 Aug 2004, at 2:14 am, JDG wrote:
And in answer to your question, the Eucharist may be received on any 
day,
given that the body of Christ is infinite and eternal.
Well there's the solution to world hunger as long as everyone doesn't 
mind the Atkins diet...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Our products just aren't engineered for security." - Brian Valentine, 
senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development 
team.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Gautam Mukunda wrote:
I don't feel that I've crossed the line at all, Sonja, when I point out that you will happily give Germans during the Second World War the benefit of every possible doubt, and then some.But when it comes to Jews and Americans, you're not so generous.  

Says who?
Would you care to explain to me why that is?
Nope. Sorry to disappoint you there but I won't take your bait. You can 
believe whatever makes you happy, dude. As I said I'm not in for a 
mudslinging contest. I'm interested in discussion, exchange of 
information , gaining knowledge/understanding and maybe some chit-chat. 
All the rest is a waste of bandwith and more imporatantly a waste of my 
time. And on that note I bid you good night.

Sonja
GCU: Nothing to prove.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[JDG]

At 04:12 PM 8/25/2004 -0230 Travis Edmunds wrote:
>>My question is whether a Catholic vegetarian can take the eucharist. (And, 
>>by extension, whether ANY Catholic can take in on Fridays.
>
>Not every Friday - Good Friday.

Actually, that would be any Friday in Lent - as well as any Friday at any
other time during the year in which said Catholic does not engage in some
other act of remembrance.

And in answer to your question, the Eucharist may be received on any day,
given that the body of Christ is infinite and eternal.

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> No deal. Your basic presumption is flawed. Not every
> German during the 
> holocaust was automatically and without exception a
> participant in the 
> holocaust and a jew murdering nazi. Since already
> this premise for your 
> insults towards me is false, your insults, i.e. that
> I'm 
> excusing/denying the holocaust and thus must be a
> nazi, is, since it is 
> based on this premise, also false.
> 
> Which still leaves the questions I've originally
> asked about 
> accountabillity and information flow, for your
> benefit rephrased as 
> unoffensively as possible, by now still conveniently
> unanswered. This to 
> me proves a point about you and your world view and
> your inabillity to 
> look and act beyond it. Since you aren't able to
> discuss this issue and 
> insist on repeating the insults towards me without
> me giving you cause I 
> believe, I'll just let it go.
> 
> Sonja

The problem with your "question" as you phrase it, is
that it repeats one of the standard tropes of
Holocaust deniers - that the Holocaust was something
that just happened, not a product of conscious design.
 It's fairly standard to hear it claimed that the
concentration camps were no worse than, say, the
British concentration camps in the Boer Wars, and they
just became worse with time through bureaucratic
drift.  This is what you are implying with your
spurious comparison of Abu Ghraib - that if things
hadn't been checked, it would have become a death
camp.  The obvious difference is that what happened in
the Holocaust was a purposeful attempt to exterminate
the Jewish population of the entire world.  Things
didn't get worse over time because of the lack of
information.  The Holocaust was purposefully designed
to exterminate right from the beginning, from the
Einsatzgruppen to Bergen-Belsen.  The only change was
that, over time, the Nazis got better at killing. 
Methods changed, objectives didn't, and _none_ of it
was about "bureaucratic drift" or things getting worse
because people didn't know what was happening.  People
knew what was happening.  They just didn't care.  I
don't feel that I've crossed the line at all, Sonja,
when I point out that you will happily give Germans
during the Second World War the benefit of every
possible doubt, and then some.  But when it comes to
Jews and Americans, you're not so generous.  Would you
care to explain to me why that is?  

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Sonja, I'll make you a deal.  If you stop making
excuses for people who participated in the Holocaust,
I'll stop calling you on it when you do it.
 

No deal. Your basic presumption is flawed. Not every German during the 
holocaust was automatically and without exception a participant in the 
holocaust and a jew murdering nazi. Since already this premise for your 
insults towards me is false, your insults, i.e. that I'm 
excusing/denying the holocaust and thus must be a nazi, is, since it is 
based on this premise, also false.

Which still leaves the questions I've originally asked about 
accountabillity and information flow, for your benefit rephrased as 
unoffensively as possible, by now still conveniently unanswered. This to 
me proves a point about you and your world view and your inabillity to 
look and act beyond it. Since you aren't able to discuss this issue and 
insist on repeating the insults towards me without me giving you cause I 
believe, I'll just let it go.

Sonja
GCU: End of discussion
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Gautam Mukunda]

Sonja, I'll make you a deal.  If you stop making
excuses for people who participated in the Holocaust,
I'll stop calling you on it when you do it.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Gautam Mukunda wrote:

Gautam, if you weren't so blindingly disposed to calling me openly or 
covertly a nazi each and every time I say something about the US or WWII 
that doesn't fit your world view, you might have actually seen the 
hypothetical questions. The header change should have been a MAJOR 
pointer. It was whether or not abuse could have become worse (and, 
indeed, if due to lack of accountabillity, chances are that abuses in 
the past have been worse). Also if this time the increase in abuse level 
has been halted before it could get worse because of the availabillity 
of ugly pictures _and/or_ a wide and very interested audience. Actually 
a wide *international* audience that's been itching to get a chance to 
hit the US over the head with mistakes made ever since the war in Irak 
started. Furthermore I wondered if the availabillity of actual pictures 
and easy flow of complete and accurate information (as in spreading of 
facts rather then rumor) could have prevented the holocaust from getting 
as bad as it did.

Now please keep whatever you think of me personally out of discussions. 
If you feel like spewing hatred my way, do it off list. The list is not 
the place for it. To me this isn't personal and I intend to keep it that 
way. If you are incapable of discussing such issues with me and only can 
come up with some name calling in response to controversial statements 
we'll call it quits and leave it at that. Rather that then bore the rest 
of the list to death with yet another flame war.

And I'd very much appreciate it if you could get of that high horse of 
yours. The US isn't perfect, nor is Europe the worst collection of 
countries on this planet.

Sonja
ROU: Patriot
xROU: Making big bangs, but not always hitting the right targets
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Jean-Marc Chaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not that I'm particulary keen on defend this
> government, but I'd be
> thankful if you could elaborate and educate me on
> this sentence. As always we
> are the last informed on errors of our own
> governments.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jean-Marc

Hi Jean-Marc.  What the French government is doing in
Darfur hasn't broken to the mainstream press too much
yet, but the BBC talks about it a little bit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm
And note this is from the _BBC_.

Quoting: 
"As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant
oil interests in Sudan. 

Mr Muselier also dismissed claims of "ethnic
cleansing" or genocide in Darfur. 

"I firmly believe it is a civil war and as they are
little villages of 30, 40, 50, there is nothing easier
than for a few armed horsemen to burn things down, to
kill the men and drive out the women," he said. 

Human rights activists say the Janjaweed are
conducting a genocide against Darfur's black African
population."

In terms of Rwanda, I think it's been a little more
explored.
This is a more general indictment of French foreign
policy:
http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newTemplate=NSArticle_NS&newDisplayURN=200406280013

Quoting the section on Rwanda:
Linda Melvern, author of two studies on the Rwandan
genocide, believes that French policy then, as now, is
"almost beyond belief. The more one looks into their
actions, the worse it gets. The French Senate inquiry
into Rwanda was a whitewash . . ."

Her third book about Rwanda will concentrate on the
role of France. She has a leaked memo confirming that
the French supplied members of the interim government
responsible for the massacres with satellite phones to
direct operations across the country. "They
hand-delivered them by courier," she says. "In the
run-up to the massacres, the French had 47 senior
officers living with and training the genocidaires.
French policy is about influence and money and
Francophonie," says Melvern. "They are very
professional at manipulating the UN system. By
controlling Boutros Boutros-Ghali, their candidate for
UN secretary general, they determined what information
about the Rwandan genocide reached the outside world."

There are some other things too.  I was told quietly
by people involved at very senior levels in the
American military effort in Kosovo and Bosnia that
they believed the French miitary was leaking
information to the Serbs.  This was confirmed to me by
my old mentor, Stanley Hoffmann, who is (amongst other
things), _French_, and very, very, very pro-French in
all things, and who was quite enraged (to the extent
that Stanley, possibly the world's most mild-mannered
person, ever gets enraged) by the whole affair.  This
isn't classified - I think I've actually seen public
references to it, but I can't think of one offhand. 
It's just something that the mainstream media has, for
whatveer reason (I think I know, but what the hell)
hasn't talked about yet.  This was because the French
government had very close ties to the Serbs and, in
the crudest of possible terms, why let a little
genocide interefere with that kind of relationship?

The end result of all of this sort of behavior,
Jean-Marc, is I've been told by people in the Pentagon
- and not Rumsfeld appointees, but career staff - that
they think of France as an American enemy, and it has
acted that way for years - long before Iraq, basically
ever since the fall of the Soviet Union.  From my
outside perspective, that seems right to me.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Jean-Marc Chaton]

* Gautam Mukunda [Sat, 28/08/2004 at 08:32 -0700]
> There absolutely is.  How about I hold France
> responsible for actively abetting the Sudanese
> government in its genocide in Darfur,

Not that I'm particulary keen on defend this government, but I'd be
thankful if you could elaborate and educate me on this sentence. As always we
are the last informed on errors of our own governments.

Thanks


-- 
Jean-Marc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Erik Reuter]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 08:32:02AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> The US government is prosecuting the people involved in Abu Ghraib.

Some of them, anyway. Not the ones who were most responsible.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> How strange that US soldiers misbehaving like they
> did in the Abu Graihb 
> prison (for all I know also in all other totally
> shielded or even to us 
> unknown  prisons as well) are somehow exempted from
> this point of view. 

Gee, Sonja, let's count up the ways in which the
situation is different.  Here's the most important
one:
The US government is prosecuting the people involved
in Abu Ghraib.  The German government was, of course,
conducting the Holocaust as a matter of policy.

Hmmm, here's another one.  The American people, when
they found out about the atrocity, reacted with horror
and demanded that the people involved meet justice. 
Most Germans (indeed, it would be fair to say most
Europeans) reacted to the Holocaust on a spectrum that
ran from mild disfavor to wholehearted approval. 
Indeed, even today, as you so kindly demonstrate, many
will do anything to diminish the culpability of the
people involved and trivialize the horror of what they
did by comparing it to far lesser events.

> Probably because they are what they are. US soldiers
> acting under 
> orders. So what made *them* do it. Are they also
> basically and 
> intrinsically evil, like all German soldiers were
> evil, like the whole 
> of the German population was assumed to be
> knowledgeble of the facts and 
> thus basically evil? I mean the question stays the
> same, because the 
> situation actually is the same. Abuse of imprisoned
> defenseless peoples 
> for no other reason than that it was commanded by
> superiors, known to 
> all who ever were near that scene and did nothing
> about it. Killing them 
> is only the next step. The only difference this time
> is that pictures 
> were taken, lots of horrible pictures, and that
> those got out into the 
> world in mega speed time and onto a really big and
> interested audience.

Actually, the difference is obvious to anyone not
desperate to slander Americans and excuse Nazis. 
Obviously members of the American civilian population
did not know what was happening in Iraq simultaneously
with the events.  It involved a (relatively) small
number of people, thousands of miles away.

OTOH, the historical evidence that most Germans knew
what was happening in the Holocaust is overwhelming. 
It involved millions of their neighbors either
executed in place or sent in trains to death camps
very near their own countries, guarded by people drawn
from their communities.  It went on for years and
involved millions of people.  In fact, we know from
the diaries of a lone Jew who managed to survive the
war in Berlin that he was able to _name the death
camps_.  He knew where they were and what they were
doing, despite the fact that he was an ordinary
citizen with no special knowledge whatsoever.  He knew
because everyone knew.
> 
> I wonder what would have happened if pictures of
> concentration camps had 
> made it to as wide a public as the pictures of the
> Abu Graihb prison in 
> as short a timespan, and before it really got
> abominable. 

I think the fact that you think there was a time
"before" the concentration camps were abominable tells
us everything we need to know, actually. 

> Then agian
> Somalia was 
> basically played out in front of cameras and nobody
> much cared for 
> people being shot or being hacked to pieces back
> then.

Well, Sonja, if you mean by nobody "nobody in Europe"
then you're right.  If you mean, "nobody in the world"
you're obviously wrong, because I have friends in the
American military who were deployed to Mogadishu
because we _did_ care about what happened (the
starvation, I mean) and tried to do something to stop
it.
> 
> Sometimes there is something to say for a world
> where ever person can be 
> held accountable for all of their actions by
> everybody else during all 
> of the time.
> 
> Sonja

There absolutely is.  How about I hold France
responsible for actively abetting the Sudanese
government in its genocide in Darfur, and the Rwandan
government in its genocide as well?  Note - not
sitting on its hands and doing nothing.  The US has
done that often enough, and I'm ashamed of that fact. 
But actually _helping_ the governments involved.  That
might be a good start, come to think of it.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Damon Agretto wrote:
And to do a little thread synthesis here, the
discussions about Nazi Germany bear mentioning here as
well. We had already talked about German coercion with
regards to the Holocaust. The point is, that these
Germans KNEW what they were doing was immoral, but
chose to do it anyway (power and free will sometimes
are not the best combinations). If they had thought
kiling Jews was ethical there would have been real
consequences to a refusal to participate.
 

How strange that US soldiers misbehaving like they did in the Abu Graihb 
prison (for all I know also in all other totally shielded or even to us 
unknown  prisons as well) are somehow exempted from this point of view. 
Probably because they are what they are. US soldiers acting under 
orders. So what made *them* do it. Are they also basically and 
intrinsically evil, like all German soldiers were evil, like the whole 
of the German population was assumed to be knowledgeble of the facts and 
thus basically evil? I mean the question stays the same, because the 
situation actually is the same. Abuse of imprisoned defenseless peoples 
for no other reason than that it was commanded by superiors, known to 
all who ever were near that scene and did nothing about it. Killing them 
is only the next step. The only difference this time is that pictures 
were taken, lots of horrible pictures, and that those got out into the 
world in mega speed time and onto a really big and interested audience.

I wonder what would have happened if pictures of concentration camps had 
made it to as wide a public as the pictures of the Abu Graihb prison in 
as short a timespan, and before it really got abominable. Or more 
disturbing a thought, what would have happened if those pictures in Irak 
had never made it to the big public? Don't y'all wonder how things 
_really_ were in Vietnam and Korea and all them other little wars and 
bushfires, way back when pictures of inhuman or basically WRONG 
behaviour didn't have that easy and fast road back to the large public 
all over the world? I know I do wonder I mean. Would the bridge over 
the River Quay still have that nasty ring to it, that it does have now? 
Or how about the Taliban, would they have lasted as long as they did? 
The Polpot regime maybe? Would the world have cared more if pictures of 
massacres would have been on a live feed? Then agian Somalia was 
basically played out in front of cameras and nobody much cared for 
people being shot or being hacked to pieces back then.

Sometimes there is something to say for a world where ever person can be 
held accountable for all of their actions by everybody else during all 
of the time.

Sonja
ROU: Stages change, situations and choices to be made basically stay the 
same, outcomes differ
xROU: Similarities anyone?

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Travis Edmunds]

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 22:03:19 EDT

Warren

Gene space arguments are fine if you're discussing creatures with no 
clear
sense of self-awareness or consequences for actions, such as bacteria or
tobacco company attorneys. Once you install a sense of "I", things 
change.

Me

Keep in mind, that a sense of "I" is limited entirely to the "I".

Why do you think that?
Because humanity hasn't been assimilated into the Borg Collective yet...
 We, as individuals, draw our own subjective lines in the 
proverbial sand. Thus my original sentence contra the overly optimistic 
generalization of Warren.

One way to think of consciousness is an biographer who looks
at the actions of the subject and then makes up a story to explain why the
subject did such and so.
That certainly is interesting. But how is it even remotely justifiable to 
equate human action with a state that can be seen as little more than muscle 
memory, or some such trigger?

Of course in exploring that, we come full circle back to the general sense 
of "I"...

-Travis
_
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has 
to offer. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Damon Agretto]

> I won't argue with that.  I'm sure that the right of
> conquest was
> considered natural many years ago.  But, when that
> right of conquest was
> exercised in the Balkins, it was condemned as an
> atrocity.

Perhaps because our definition of rape has changed, or
more importantly, our perceptions of what rape IS has
changed. 
 
> I don't actually believe we will find "the rape
> gene".  I was just trying
> to streamline my point to accentuate a key feature. 
> Your more complicated
> explanation still supports my original point: we
> cannot reduce morality to
> that which we have a natural predisposition to
> doas some have argued.

And to do a little thread synthesis here, the
discussions about Nazi Germany bear mentioning here as
well. We had already talked about German coercion with
regards to the Holocaust. The point is, that these
Germans KNEW what they were doing was immoral, but
chose to do it anyway (power and free will sometimes
are not the best combinations). If they had thought
kiling Jews was ethical there would have been real
consequences to a refusal to participate.

Damon.


=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 




___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Damon Agretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican


>
> > I was specifically thinking about rape accompanying
> > conquest.  Lets
> > simplify it.  Take a system with thousands of
> > tribes.  There are attacks
> > from time to time.  The variables are such that each
> > is as likely to wind
> > the conquest as the other.
>
> I was also thinking about rape wrt conquest as well.
> The point I was making is that the gene being passed
> on isn't one that favors rape as a means of
> reproduction, but rather one that favors promiscuity.
> Rape is simply the means of passing on that gene
> amongst a host of other means (harems, consentual
> relationships, etc).

I understand that; but I think its more than promiscuity.  Its having the
conquerers have highly preferred, if not exclusive acess to the nubile
women.  They bear the conquers' children, not those of the men of their
original tribe...even if they had had a long standing relationship with
them before.


Since rape is not as well defined
> as we would like I think (bear with me and think in
> the context of primitive cultural groups), what we
> might consider rape today may have merely been "taking
> care of business" in primitive cultures. Therefore,
> the females might submit because "that's the way
> things are done" as well as possibly being suitably
> impressed with the big burly warrior as well to allow
> him to impregnate her. How often do you hear about
> this today? Much more common than it would seem I
> think.

I won't argue with that.  I'm sure that the right of conquest was
considered natural many years ago.  But, when that right of conquest was
exercised in the Balkins, it was condemned as an atrocity.

> > I'd argue that after a number of generations, the
> > gene to take the women of
> > the other tribe as concubines will dominate.
>
> That's logical IF you think there's a genetic
> predisposition to rape.

I was trying to set up a simplified model to make my point.  Rape was a
short hand for using force to have as many sexual partners as possible,
limiting their contact with other males, and forcing others to work to
support your offspring.

I don't actually believe we will find "the rape gene".  I was just trying
to streamline my point to accentuate a key feature.  Your more complicated
explanation still supports my original point: we cannot reduce morality to
that which we have a natural predisposition to doas some have argued.


Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[William T Goodall]

On 27 Aug 2004, at 3:03 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If we behave in the same way as an animal that lacks
our intelligence and consciousness (it has a more limited sense or 
absent sense
of "I") then maybe our consciousness really isn't the thing that is
controlling our behavior. One way to think of consciousness is an 
biographer who looks
at the actions of the subject and then makes up a story to explain why 
the
subject did such and so. Many "split brain experiments" have 
documented that the
conscious self will make up reasons for actions that aren't so. Split 
brain
person is someone who has had the left and right hemispheres 
disconnected to
treat seizure disorders or psychosis. Experiment. Cover the right eye 
(so that
the left hemisphere can't see what is going on. Show a card that says 
"pick up
that chair to the person".. Now ask the person why he/she picked it 
up. The
person will make up a story (because I like that chair more than the 
one I am
sitting in).
But if our conscious experience follows from our actions rather than 
causing them (and this does seen to be at least partly the case) then 
what is it for?

A way of simplifying and organizing memory? A narrative we use to 
communicate with other people? Or perhaps the fact that we act before 
we are aware of acting is irrelevant since we just did what we 
eventually decided we were going to do anyway :)

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Misuse of IMPs leads to strange, difficult-to-diagnose bugs.
- Anguish et al. "Cocoa Programming"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 8/26/2004 4:07:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gene space arguments are fine if you're discussing creatures with no clear 
>sense of self-awareness or consequences for actions, such as bacteria or 
>tobacco company attorneys. Once you install a sense of "I", things change.

Keep in mind, that a sense of "I" is limited entirely to the "I".
Why do you think that? If we behave in the same way as an animal that lacks 
our intelligence and consciousness (it has a more limited sense or absent sense 
of "I") then maybe our consciousness really isn't the thing that is 
controlling our behavior. One way to think of consciousness is an biographer who looks 
at the actions of the subject and then makes up a story to explain why the 
subject did such and so. Many "split brain experiments" have documented that the 
conscious self will make up reasons for actions that aren't so. Split brain 
person is someone who has had the left and right hemispheres disconnected to 
treat seizure disorders or psychosis. Experiment. Cover the right eye (so that 
the left hemisphere can't see what is going on. Show a card that says "pick up 
that chair to the person".. Now ask the person why he/she picked it up. The 
person will make up a story (because I like that chair more than the one I am 
sitting in).  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 8/26/2004 2:43:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Probably. But then I bet the raper isn't thinking
altruistically about the Human Race, but rather
maximizing the spread of his genes. It's an
evolutionary advantage, but to HIM.
This of course true. It is also the reason that Susan Brownmueller's theory 
that rape is a political act to keep women down, that it is about power rather 
than sex seems kind of silly. Why would the rapist risk jail or worse to 
advance male dominance? If it is about power rather than sex why are rapists almost 
always young men and rape victims young women? Rape is about sex and it is as 
Damon points out part of the male drive to procreate by hook or crook. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 8/26/2004 1:07:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
If a conquered community's offspring were mostly procreated by one man or 
one man and his immediate relatives, wouldn't this reduce the genetic 
diversity of a population and thus result in an evolutionary disadvantage
Well if an entire population had a single male or he and his immediate 
offspring yes diversity would go down but this would not happen. Too many tribes, 
too much mixing (if only by killing). Remember is some bird and mammal species 
one male can be the parent of most of the offspring in a community (species 
with harems like silver back gorillas, sea lions etc, lechting species of birds 
like Peacocks). So one males genes may come to dominate a local population but 
then of course in these species there is cheating and rape to keep things well 
mixed up. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Bemmzim]

In a message dated 8/25/2004 9:31:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is similar to what Dan mentioned about Ghengis Khan -- but it's 
still disseminating genes, not actually changing a species. At best 
rape might be *neutral* evolutionarily -- neither favored nor selected 
against -- but I'm still unconvinced that it can be said to actually be 
selected for in the evolutionary scheme.

It is a strategy that probably exists in all males (the potential for rape). 
Under some circumstances it is activated. It may not be selected for per see 
but males want to procreate and are willing to use physical coercion to make 
this happen. Humans have a host of genetically installed behaviors that are used 
contingently (if you see a bear run like crazy unless you have a gun). Rape 
may be one of these. If you have no other opportunity to procreate try rape. 
Your chances of success are low but they are better than nothing. Of course 
there are other equally genetic traits that mitigate against this, which is why 
the vast majority of men do not rape even when their chances for procreation are 
small.


> 
That's not evolved; the only reason one would have guilt after rape 
would be if one believed it to be a bad thing. Guilt is a 
socially-created phenomenon.

Ah but here you are wrong. Guilt serves a very useful purpose in social 
animals that use recipricol altruism. It is an internal and largely unconscious 
talleying up of whether one's actions are likley to be viewed as reasonable by 
other members of the society. Guilt is an internal sense of whether one is 
behaving correctly and therefore it is a inhibitor of selfish behavior. The 
advantage to the organism that can feel guilt is that it gets to stay in the society 
and since that is what all social animals wish to do, guilt is very useful. 


> Morality is in fact an evolved feature, Self-sacrifice is an evolved
> trait, It is really not sacrifice but rather either kin selection or 
> recipricol
> altruism.

The two things are discrete, though -- morality (whatever that is) is 
not equivalent to self-sacrifice or vice-versa. Self-sacrifice, as you 
suggest, can be selected for.

> Both of these behaviors increase the reproductive success of a social
> animal. Morality is the way we keep score in recipricol altruism.

That's an interesting take on it that I hadn't considered before.
For more literate explanations than I can provide of such things read Robert 
Wright's "The Moral Animal" or Steven Pinkers "How the Mind Works". 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan Minette wrote:
>
> I was specifically thinking about rape accompanying conquest.  Lets
> simplify it.  Take a system with thousands of tribes.  There are attacks
> from time to time.  The variables are such that each is as likely to wind
> the conquest as the other.
>
> 5% of these thousands of tribes have a gene that causes its males to take
> the females of the other tribe as concubines.  95% have a gene that causes
> its males to let old marriages stand.  After a tribe has been conquered and
> absorbed , it eventually splits into two tribes simply because its more
> convenient to organize into relatively smaller groups.
>
> I'd argue that after a number of generations, the gene to take the women of
> the other tribe as concubines will dominate.
>
This will _not_ happen if the half-brothers compete among themselves:
it might be that having two sons from different women might _decrease_
the chance that a man would have (male) grandchildren, because those
two half-brothers would kill/maim each other to control the father's
inheritance.

In fact, this could have happened in many royal families over History.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Damon Agretto]

> I was specifically thinking about rape accompanying
> conquest.  Lets
> simplify it.  Take a system with thousands of
> tribes.  There are attacks
> from time to time.  The variables are such that each
> is as likely to wind
> the conquest as the other.

I was also thinking about rape wrt conquest as well.
The point I was making is that the gene being passed
on isn't one that favors rape as a means of
reproduction, but rather one that favors promiscuity.
Rape is simply the means of passing on that gene
amongst a host of other means (harems, consentual
relationships, etc). Since rape is not as well defined
as we would like I think (bear with me and think in
the context of primitive cultural groups), what we
might consider rape today may have merely been "taking
care of business" in primitive cultures. Therefore,
the females might submit because "that's the way
things are done" as well as possibly being suitably
impressed with the big burly warrior as well to allow
him to impregnate her. How often do you hear about
this today? Much more common than it would seem I
think.
 
> I'd argue that after a number of generations, the
> gene to take the women of
> the other tribe as concubines will dominate.

That's logical IF you think there's a genetic
predisposition to rape. Rather, my reasoning is that
there would not neccessarily be one because the gene
that promotes promiscuity is already in place and
serves the same function. Rather, the tendency to rape
is not genetic but a decision ("free will" if you
will) of behavior in order to satisfy that urge. Human
beings (as well as animals, I would assume) will tend
to find the easiest most efficient way to do things
given time, trial and error. It's simply easier to
find your neighbouring tribe and club all the men to
take their women, rather than try to woo them to form
a harem. Wooing might work for a small number of
women, but to maintain a large harem would require a
more efficient and less time consuming method (threat
of violence, either against the women or against
possible suitors).

> If you look at descriptions of very ancient
> civilizations, based on
> families and tribes, you will see that this was
> taken for grantedthe
> head of the house had a right to have children with
> the handmaidens of his
> wives.

But the question is, is that actually rape? Or was
that a cultural more?

Damon.


=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Damon Agretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican


> > If a conquered community's offspring were mostly
> > procreated by one man or
> > one man and his immediate relatives, wouldn't this
> > reduce the genetic
> > diversity of a population and thus result in an
> > evolutionary disadvantage?
>
> Probably. But then I bet the raper isn't thinking
> altruistically about the Human Race, but rather
> maximizing the spread of his genes. It's an
> evolutionary advantage, but to HIM.
>
> I think the confusion here is the association of
> rape=evolutionary advantage. I would posit the
> evolutionary advantage rather is promiscuity. Rape is
> merely a method in order to maximize that promiscuity.
>

I was specifically thinking about rape accompanying conquest.  Lets
simplify it.  Take a system with thousands of tribes.  There are attacks
from time to time.  The variables are such that each is as likely to wind
the conquest as the other.

5% of these thousands of tribes have a gene that causes its males to take
the females of the other tribe as concubines.  95% have a gene that causes
its males to let old marriages stand.  After a tribe has been conquered and
absorbed , it eventually splits into two tribes simply because its more
convenient to organize into relatively smaller groups.

I'd argue that after a number of generations, the gene to take the women of
the other tribe as concubines will dominate.

If you look at descriptions of very ancient civilizations, based on
families and tribes, you will see that this was taken for grantedthe
head of the house had a right to have children with the handmaidens of his
wives.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Deborah Harrell]

> Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Doug?]

> > If a conquered community's offspring were mostly
> > procreated by one man or 
> > one man and his immediate relatives, wouldn't this
> > reduce the genetic 
> > diversity of a population and thus result in an
> > evolutionary disadvantage?
 
> Probably. But then I bet the raper isn't thinking
> altruistically about the Human Race, but rather
> maximizing the spread of his genes. It's an
> evolutionary advantage, but to HIM.

True; unless the community is already quite insular or
inbred, it probably won't be too detrimental to their
genepool - distasteful as that may be.  :P  (Again,
look at the propable Khan gene.) 
 
> I think the confusion here is the association of
> rape=evolutionary advantage. I would posit the
> evolutionary advantage rather is promiscuity. Rape
> is merely a method in order to maximize that
> promiscuity.

If the number of offspring is very high and requires
no post-production care (I forget if that's a K or R
strategy), promiscuity is favored for both sexes
(corals, frex); if offspring require a great deal of
care to raise to reproductive age, then usually the
number is low and monogamy is favored (as in many
birds).  For other birds and many mammalian species,
since the female's investment is quite high, she is
benefited by having a male around to help protect and
feed the young, while he is benefited by impregnating
as many females as possible.  This conflict is not
confined to the human race!

Himself wrote about this, referring to "elk-men" and
"stork-men" as the promiscuous vs. monogamous modes. 
At least in voles, this is genetically determined
(mountain vs. plains species). 

Debbi
whose cats are averaging 3-4+ voles/week



__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:58:13 -0700

Gene space arguments are fine if you're discussing creatures with no clear 
sense of self-awareness or consequences for actions, such as bacteria or 
tobacco company attorneys. Once you install a sense of "I", things change.
Keep in mind, that a sense of "I" is limited entirely to the "I".
-Travis
_
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has 
to offer. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Damon Agretto]

> If a conquered community's offspring were mostly
> procreated by one man or 
> one man and his immediate relatives, wouldn't this
> reduce the genetic 
> diversity of a population and thus result in an
> evolutionary disadvantage?

Probably. But then I bet the raper isn't thinking
altruistically about the Human Race, but rather
maximizing the spread of his genes. It's an
evolutionary advantage, but to HIM.

I think the confusion here is the association of
rape=evolutionary advantage. I would posit the
evolutionary advantage rather is promiscuity. Rape is
merely a method in order to maximize that promiscuity.

Damon.


=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Horn, John]

> Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa
> 
> Electrons are mythical; partons, on the other hand, are not. 
> I went to 
> Dollywood last month so I know that for a fact.

And if you live in Florida, elections are mythical as well.  

At least that's the way I read this at first...

 - jmh

Just Kidding Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Doug Pensinger]

Warren wrote:
zim wrote:
Rape is "favored" in some sense in that males who have little or no 
chance of non-coercive copulation can procreate through rape.
This is similar to what Dan mentioned about Ghengis Khan -- but it's 
still disseminating genes, not actually changing a species. At best rape 
might be *neutral* evolutionarily -- neither favored nor selected 
against -- but I'm still unconvinced that it can be said to actually be 
selected for in the evolutionary scheme.
If a conquered community's offspring were mostly procreated by one man or 
one man and his immediate relatives, wouldn't this reduce the genetic 
diversity of a population and thus result in an evolutionary disadvantage?

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 25, 2004, at 6:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rape is "favored" in some sense in that males who have little or no 
chance
of non-coercive copulation can procreate through rape.
This is similar to what Dan mentioned about Ghengis Khan -- but it's 
still disseminating genes, not actually changing a species. At best 
rape might be *neutral* evolutionarily -- neither favored nor selected 
against -- but I'm still unconvinced that it can be said to actually be 
selected for in the evolutionary scheme.

But there are other
natural forces that mitgate against rape. One of these evolved 
atributes is
guilt.
That's not evolved; the only reason one would have guilt after rape 
would be if one believed it to be a bad thing. Guilt is a 
socially-created phenomenon.

Morality is in fact an evolved feature, Self-sacrifice is an evolved
trait, It is really not sacrifice but rather either kin selection or 
recipricol
altruism.
The two things are discrete, though -- morality (whatever that is) is 
not equivalent to self-sacrifice or vice-versa. Self-sacrifice, as you 
suggest, can be selected for.

Both of these behaviors increase the reproductive success of a social
animal. Morality is the way we keep score in recipricol altruism.
That's an interesting take on it that I hadn't considered before.
-- WthmO
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 25, 2004, at 5:55 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Differing with their unfounded assumptions is just irrational :-)
No, but differing with reality is. :D
Hmm, how do I differ with reality?
Where did I say you did?
We differ.  I was referring to assumptions of yours that I differ with.
You responded to my reference with
 "No, but differing with reality is. :D"
Actually what you said was:
"Its ironic to have someone who attacks those who have different a 
priori
presuppositions as a freethinker.  One is free to think, only in so far 
as
one agrees with a particular freethinker. Differing with their unfounded
assumptions is just irrational :-)"

You used impersonal pronouns throughout, carefully and deliberately, 
which indicated to me that you were not necessarily referring to me 
directly.

Now if you were to say something like:
  "I guess, Warren, that differing with your..."
why, I'd have to handle it more directly. However I don't know if you 
differ with reality and/or to what degree; I don't know you anywhere 
near well enough to come to any kind of conclusion on the subject. 
Therefore no, the above was not directed at you *unless you do in fact 
differ from reality* and know that you do.

It's irrefutable, however, that differing from reality is irrational.
It seems you're a trifle sensitive on the topic. I take it you've been 
burned before in other discussions with other people.

Well, I'm not those people.
OK, do atoms exist apart from humans.
I'd hope so. If not my chair couldn't be holding my weight.
How small a scale do you need to get to before reality ends?
Not sure. How small do things get before reality vanishes?
Our inability to perceive things smaller than a given scale doesn't 
mean they don't exist, so I'm not really sure where you're going with 
this.

-- WthmO
I've never held an opinion.
I give them away freely.
--
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican


>
> In a message dated 8/24/2004 5:20:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> The same  is true for human actions.  Both rape and self sacrifice for
one's
> kin  occur.  Both can be evolutionarily favored.  One is immoral; one  is
> moral.
>
>
>
>
> Rape is "favored" in some sense in that males who have little or no
chance
> of non-coercive copulation can procreate through rape.

But, what about Genghis Kahn?  IIRC, _you_ were the one who pointed out
that raping conqured women is evolutionarily favored.

 But there are other
> natural forces that mitgate against rape. One of these evolved atributes
is
> guilt. Morality is in fact an evolved feature, Self-sacrifice is an
evolved
> trait, It is really not sacrifice but rather either kin selection or
recipricol
> altruism. Both of these behaviors increase the reproductive success of a
social
> animal. Morality is the way we keep score in recipricol altruism.

So, actions that help the "other" are not moral?  Indeed, Jesus directly
addressed this in his discussions of morality.  "Don't invite your friends
to dinner; they may invite you back...invite those who cannot reciprocate
the favor.

Moral actions that help "the other" are not evolutionarily favored.  Other
primates use rape as a tool of dominance.  That isn't moral.  Yet, it must
be favored for at least some primates because it happens.

As far back as Ecclesiastes, people noted that "the good die young and the
wicked grow rich and live to see their children's children children."

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dave Land]

On Aug 25, 2004, at 5:55 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Differing with their unfounded assumptions is just irrational :-)
No, but differing with reality is. :D
Hmm, how do I differ with reality?
Where did I say you did?
We differ.  I was referring to assumptions of yours that I differ with.
You responded to my reference with
 "No, but differing with reality is. :D"
Was I supposed to interpret this as simply a random statement that had 
no
relationship with my statement?  I interpreted it as a reply to my
statement.  Why would this be wrong?
Don't you see? There is no "wrong." There is only "how you think about
it," or, more correctly, "how Warren thinks about it," or, better yet,
"how I think about it," since none of you even exist if I stop thinking
about you, to hear some people tell the story.
Watch: I just stopped all the electrons from spinning, then started
'em up again. Pretty cool, huh? Unfortunately, because doing so stops
time, you didn't even notice. And even I'm sure, being distracted by
all the partons in here.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Bemmzim]

 
In a message dated 8/24/2004 5:20:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The same  is true for human actions.  Both rape and self sacrifice for one's
kin  occur.  Both can be evolutionarily favored.  One is immoral; one  is
moral.




Rape is "favored" in some sense in that males who have little or no chance  
of non-coercive copulation can procreate through rape. But there are other  
natural forces that mitgate against rape. One of these evolved atributes is  
guilt. Morality is in fact an evolved feature, Self-sacrifice is an evolved  
trait, It is really not sacrifice but rather either kin selection or recipricol  
altruism. Both of these behaviors increase the reproductive success of a social  
animal. Morality is the way we keep score in recipricol altruism. 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican


> On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >>> Differing with their unfounded assumptions is just irrational :-)
> >>
> >> No, but differing with reality is. :D
> >
> > Hmm, how do I differ with reality?
>
> Where did I say you did?

We differ.  I was referring to assumptions of yours that I differ with.
You responded to my reference with

 "No, but differing with reality is. :D"

Was I supposed to interpret this as simply a random statement that had no
relationship with my statement?  I interpreted it as a reply to my
statement.  Why would this be wrong?

> > From where do you get your sure knowledge of what is real and what is
> > not.
>
> Where did I say I had such sure knowledge?

Again, in the context of our exchange, the clear meaning of the text was
that my difference with you was a difference with reality.



> > For example, do you think that
> > electrons are things that exist apart from human consciousness?  What
> > about
> > partons?
>
> Electrons are mythical; partons, on the other hand, are not. I went to
> Dollywood last month so I know that for a fact.

OK, do atoms exist apart from humans.  How small a scale do you need to get
to before reality ends?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Differing with their unfounded assumptions is just irrational :-)
No, but differing with reality is. :D
Hmm, how do I differ with reality?
Where did I say you did?
From where do you get your sure knowledge of what is real and what is 
not.
Where did I say I had such sure knowledge?
For example, do you think that
electrons are things that exist apart from human consciousness?  What 
about
partons?
Electrons are mythical; partons, on the other hand, are not. I went to 
Dollywood last month so I know that for a fact.

:D
-- WthmO
This email is being broadcast with a 5-second delay.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:36 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
I disagree; I think you can look at effects of behavior and base 
ethics
on those observations. For instance if I strangle an infant I'm likely
to (at least) be shunned by my peers, since that's the kind of thing
which is, in most cases, contrasurvival (specieswise). Since I don't
want to be shunned, I shouldn't strangle infants. I don't have an
"ought" there -- I'm just looking at likely outcomes of given actions
and choosing what is justifiably the preferable behavior.
Ah, ethical actions are those self serving actions one can get away 
with.
Even the golden rule is rooted in selfishness, despite its highfalutin 
language.

Ultimately most, possibly all, actions are self-serving. If I do 
something for someone else, it's for one of two reasons: Either I hope 
I'll be rewarded tit-for-tat, or it's to benefit another member of my 
species, which might not be good for me specifically but should advance 
the cause of the gene pool.

If I believe in an absolute truth and a deity, and with it the ideas of 
good and evil (as defined by that deity), I align to the deity's edicts 
(such as "be good to other people") so I can be rewarded with life in 
some magical place after death.

Either rationale is selfish; but ethics is more sensible, I think, 
because it doesn't rely on fear to work. There's no carrot -- or stick 
-- out there goading toward decisions; actions are based, ideally, on a 
sensible and rational analysis of the situation and the likely 
consequences of given actions.

I'm not sure how rape can be evolutionarily favored, actually; can you
provide an example?
Sure. Raping conqured women is obviously evolutionarily favored.  One 
can
look at the fact that a significant fraction (is it one third?) of 
Asian
men have genetic markers that trace back to one man: who is probably
Genghis Kahn.  Indeed, just a brief review should make is clear that
castrating conquered men and taking their women must be favored
evolutionarily.
I still don't follow. While diffusing one individual's genes across a 
wide population is good for that individual's genes, I don's see how 
that connects to rape being evolutionarily favored.

Dissemination (!) of DNA does not in itself constitute evolution; 
rather, that is fecundity. So while rape can definitely enhance 
fecundity, I don't think you've convinced me yet that it's favored by 
the balances of evolution.

And if one is a selfish brute who's essentially
frittered one's life away, is it truly a favorable thing for one of
one's kin to be self-sacrificing in *any* way on one's behalf? That 
is,
is it possible for one to be such a burden that one is no longer worth
the trouble?
I'm talking about what's genetically favored.  If one sacrifices for 
one's
tribe, then genes close to one's own are more likely to continue.  
Think
about gene space.
But I can't and neither can you, because (as Dawkins points out) we are 
not simply genetic messengers. We carry social ideas as well, and if a 
social idea proves to be a bad one it will be eradicated as surely as a 
genetic sport.

Gene space arguments are fine if you're discussing creatures with no 
clear sense of self-awareness or consequences for actions, such as 
bacteria or tobacco company attorneys. Once you install a sense of "I", 
things change.

-- WthmO
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dave Land]

On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Differing with their unfounded assumptions is just irrational :-)
No, but differing with reality is. :D
Hmm, how do I differ with reality?  From where do you get your sure
knowledge of what is real and what is not.  For example, do you think 
that
electrons are things that exist apart from human consciousness?  What 
about
partons?
I know of at least one Parton. I've seen her on TV.
In truth (if, indeed, there is such a thing as truth), I have to admit
that I have no proof that there is now or ever was a "TV" or that the
images that appeared to flickered upon its apparent surface were
anything more than unusual configurations of neural noise in my
brain.
Dave
De
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: The Mercies of The Vatican


> On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:28 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >> Indeed. Rather like athlete's foot, freethinkers tend to keep
> >> surfacing. ;)
> >
> > Its ironic to have someone who attacks those who have different a
> > priori
> > presuppositions as a freethinker.
>
> It is indeed. I'll make sure to point that out the next time is see a
> self-proclaimed freethinker attacking anyone else's a priori
> suppositions.
>
> > Differing with their unfounded assumptions is just irrational :-)
>
> No, but differing with reality is. :D

Hmm, how do I differ with reality?  From where do you get your sure
knowledge of what is real and what is not.  For example, do you think that
electrons are things that exist apart from human consciousness?  What about
partons?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Mercies of The Vatican

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:28 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Indeed. Rather like athlete's foot, freethinkers tend to keep
surfacing. ;)
Its ironic to have someone who attacks those who have different a 
priori
presuppositions as a freethinker.
It is indeed. I'll make sure to point that out the next time is see a 
self-proclaimed freethinker attacking anyone else's a priori 
suppositions.

Differing with their unfounded assumptions is just irrational :-)
No, but differing with reality is. :D
-- WthmO
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l