L'origine de Bert
Monday, December 20, 2004
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning." - Rich Cook
Random Playlist Song: Mendelssohn - Violin Concerto in E minor op 64 - I- Allegro molto appassionato (Hilary Hahn, Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra)
Hilary Hahn’s version of the Mendelssohn concerto is outstanding. Her sweetness of tone is emphatic yet not overtly emotional, which if not properly gauged can kill a performance of this wonderful concerto. Technically, her playing is superb. She is given sympathetic and thoughtful support from the Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra led by Hugh Wolff. But there are occasions when I wished the orchestra didn’t stay right on her. This is an exuberant work were the soloist dazzles; there is no need for an orchestra to propel the violinist along. Hahn is in complete command of the Mendelssohn piece. Nothing is lacking in her interpretation of Mendelssohn, and although there might be more glorious versions, (Heifetz’s recording with Charles Munch and The Boston Symphony Orchestra or Menuhin with Wilhelm Furtwangler and The Berlin Philharmonic come to mind), her performance is first rate. The sound on the Hahn disc is extraordinary, owing to the high quality audio afforded by the SACD process.
Random Trivia bit: On September 11th, 1941, construction began on the Pentagon.
The Pentagon, headquarters for the United States defense department, was conceived as a way to consolidate military leadership into one building from the more than 20 they were occupying in the late 1930s.
Pentagon construction began on September 11, 1941 and the first occupants moved into the building in late April 1942. The building was completed in January 1943.
The Pentagon became the third target hit by a hijacked airplane on 9/11/01, the 60th anniversary of the start of its construction, killing 125 people in the building, plus 59 innocent passengers and crew on the plane.
A massive reconstruction project followed the attack, and people moved into the newly-repaired area less than one year later. (It Happened 9/11)
***
I am the Polar Bear Wildzord! You got to be cool if
you want to hang with me. I don't associate
with just anyone, you know.
Which Wildzord are you?
Which Wildzord are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
***
An embarrassingly parallel problem is a parallel computing problem that can easily, or very obviously, be split up into parts that can be computed in parallel. What these problems generally have in common is that each step can be computed independently from every other step, thus each step could be made to run on a separate processor to achieve quicker results. Examples of embarrassingly parallel problems include the computation of the Mandelbrot set, and brute force key searches in cryptography.
I don't see what's so embarrassing about it.
***
These people put things so well:
Fighting Fantasy
"Fantasy peddling titans Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone pioneered this disparate series of gamebooks during the early 1980s. Their names soon became closely associated with the booming franchise, and when their individual efforts tapered off, publishers Puffin ushered in additional authors to participate in the gamebook authoring melee, but chose not to soil the front covers with their names. Thus Steve and Ian's altruistic cover presence remained throughout the series, with the supplemental authors acquiring little fame, unlike their Ganjees-like overlords.
Each imaginatively titled 'interactive adventure' attempted various methods to disguise the inevitable linear route that comprised each 400-paragraphed gamebook. Early plots invited readers to journey through mountain, tower, forest and dungeon locales with Warlock of Firetop Mountain, Citadel of Chaos, Forest of Doom, and the oft-quoted seminal dungeon crawl, Deathtrap Dungeon. Jackson also crafted some fiendishly tricky titles such as House of Hell and Creature of Havoc.
The public's demand for the series, and gamebooks in general, began to wane towards the late '80s, but falling sales did not necessarily equate to weaker output. Dead of Night, Black Vein Prophecy, Legend of the Shadow Warriors, Moonrunner and Ian Livingstone's final effort, Legend of Zagor, were some notable examples of solid work that appeared towards the tail end of the series.
By the mid '90s however, new plots that could adhere to the relatively simplistic "FF" format seemed practically exhausted, and Puffin's inevitable gamebook implosion occurred less than 15 years after the big Fighting Fantasy bang of '82. And history looks set to repeat itself with the commercially stale rebirth by Wizard Books, who simply opted to reprint existing stock, albeit in a slightly different order, with updated covers.
An aesthetically pleasing iconic symbol of '80s youth fiction, the original numbered lime green spine paperbacks can still be seen today, in amongst charity shop bric-a-brac, second hand book shops, and eBay. For many '80s teens, Fighting Fantasy represented a never seen before exciting fusion of solitaire game play, reading, and fantasy escapism, and perhaps made reading, for some anyway, truly engaging for the very first time.
Nostalgically remembered predominately by 30-somethings today, the actual game play itself could be considered less appealing than the fondness of an ever-distant childhood memory.
Now turn to 400..."
***
10 songs
1. Open up the music player on your computer.
2. Set it to play your entire music collection.
3. Hit the “shuffle” command.
4. Tell us the title of the next ten songs that show up (with their musicians), no matter how embarrassing. That’s right, no skipping that Carpenters tune that will totally destroy your hip credibility. It’s time for total musical honesty.
5. Write it up in your blog or journal and link back to at least a couple of the other sites where you saw this.
6. If you get the same artist twice, you may skip the second (or third, or etc.) occurances. You don’t have to, but since randomness could mean you end up with a list of ten song with five artists, you can if you’d like.
Grieg - Holberg Suite - 2 - Sarabande (Andante)
Handel - Water Music - Adagio (Capella Istropolitana/Bohdan Warchal)
Muppets - Under The Boardwalk
Haydn - String Quartet No 48 In C, Op 64, No 1 - 3 Allegretto scherzando (Kodaly Quartet)
TBS and Friends [Ed: Toh Ban Sheng's 2000 farewell concert] - John Rutter - The Music's Always There With You
Beethoven - Piano Sonata 13 In E Flat Op 27 No 01 - 02 - Allegro molto e vivace (Arrau)
Victoria, Tomas Luis De - 02 - Jesum tradidit
Classic Disney Volume I - A Whale Of A Tale - 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954)
Chopin - Etude Op 25 No 5 (Mei-Ting Sun)
Bach - Wachet Auf, Ruft Uns Die Stimme - 2 - Recitative - Er Kommt, Er Kommt (Karl Richter)
Curiously, none of my Power Rangers music showed up *g* Of course, this is really embarrassing only for those who don't upload their playlists.
(Source: podeam)
***
"Hilary Hahn, despite her serious, thoughtful approach to music, seems to have succumbed to the current trend among today's performers--perhaps symptomatic of the jet-age--to play as fast as their fingers will carry them. The fast movements are taken at such speeds that they lose all their elegance, grace and charm, become prone to false accents, and sound aggressive, hectic and breathless."
After hearing a sample of BWV 1043 (included on the album this comment is about) I tend to agree.
***
Q: I want a low-stress high-paying job where I can help people. Do you think psychology is the right career for me?
A: No. Become a plumber. Just about anyone will pay you a small fortune to unclog a stopped-up toilet.
***
Someone offers this justification for Islamic polygyny:
I think what most people don't understand about polygamy is that it isn't just for the male's whims and fancies. There are laws governing polygamy, one of which is that if a man chooses to take a second wife, the first wife has to give permission. If she doesn't, it isn't polygamy as allowed by Islam. The fact that most men do take advantage of polygamy and give it a bad connotation shouldn't detract from its intent.
In polygamy, the man is expected to treat each wife fairly. In adultery, the feelings of the victimised party are hurt. The logic behind allowing adultery was that sometimes the wife is unable to satisfy her husband sexually or emotionally or whatever, so he takes another wife such that he can have his needs fulfilled without having to abandon his wife in favour of another woman.
Islam is a logical religion; polygamy allows a Muslim man to take up to four wives. If you notice the population trends, there are a lot more women than men. Polygamy gives every woman a chance to have a husband and to have legitimate children, if she should wish. Don't confuse polygamy with adultery, which is basically being unfaithful.
I dunno how to put it across effectively. There are books which can explain it better. But in some cases, a man is capable of loving two women with the same passion and if he's able to provide both with equally fulfilling marriages and lives, he should be allowed to do so rather than to have to choose one and leave the other one cold.
Sexual dissatisfaction isn't the only grounds for monogamy, but you can't deny that sex is an important part of marriage, since it contributes towards intimacty. And men do have stronger sexual drives than women, generally speaking. It's just taking into account that as women age, sometimes they aren't as giving, and it's better for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman whom he is legally married to rather for him to go to Batam or whatever and get AIDS from the women there.
Me: Actually for younger ages, there are more men than women; women start outnumbering men only around the menopausal years or so. More and more women are choosing to remain single nowadays too. Thus, Islamic polygyny reduces the pool of available women for men.
Besides which, what happens if the husband is unable to satisfy his wife sexually or emotionally or whatever?
Going by your logic, polyandry and polygyny both should be legalised, with the former more prevalent when people are young and the latter when people are old.
(Not that I have a problem with that, but I'm betting that you'll recoil at the suggestion)
***
Interview with Wes Cherry, the guy who programmed Solitaire
*choke* There's a Livejournal community with Singapore Idol slash involving (you guessed it) Taufik and Sylvester. Someone, please bludgeon me over the head with a saucepan now.
The most irritating curriculum vitae in the world - in flash, set to music and sung out of tune and rhythm
***
People were expressing horror, shock and outrage at the case of the maggot-infested Shih Tzus in Pasir Ris:
A: These people ought to rot and die a slow and painful death.
Me: And I suppose that those who squash cockroaches should be squashed also.
B: Dogs are pets and cockroaches are pests. They are a world apart.
Me: Dogs are pets and humans are humans. They are a world apart.
How about the torture battery chickens go through? I'm sure they are a level above pests, no? Should we imprison chicken farmers in cages, with nowhere to move and with their noses cut off?
I suppose I have reaffirmed my reputation as a heartless bastard.
***
I have gone wild with my Firefox Extensions!
Last updated: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:22:12 GMT
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20041210 Firefox/1.0+ StumbleUpon/1.999
*** Extensions (35):
stumbleupon 1.999 (Visit and rate random sites - good when I'm bored)
Show Anchors 1.0 (Shows <a name> tags and lets you copy them to the clipboard with a click - good for linking to anchors)
Copy URL+ 1.2.2 (Copy page's URL, Title and/or selected text to clipboard)
Tweak Network 1.0 (Turbo charge with pipelining and boosting simultaneous connection settings)
OpenBook 1.2.0 (Customise Add Bookmark dialog)
Linky 2.2.0 (Open selected links in tabs)
Tabbrowser Preferences 1.1.1 (Tweak hidden tabbed browsing preferences)
Popup ALT Attribute 1.3.2004102501 (Displays img alt tags as tooltips)
ieview 0.84 (View screwy pages in IE)
Disable Targets For Downloads 0.9 (Attempts to prevent links to download files opening in a new window)
How'd I Get Here 0.1 (Goes to the page from which you were first referred to the current page)
Enhanced History Manager 0.4.1.02 (Brings the power of Seamonkey's History Manager back to Firefox)
keyconfig 20040910 (Customise shortcuts)
Autoclose Bookmark & History Folders 0.0.2 (Closes bookmark/history folders in the sidebar when you open new ones, ala IE)
Bookmark Duplicate Detector 0.0.1 (Prevents you from adding duplicate bookmarks)
Browser Uptime 1.6.0 (Displays how long the browser and this browser window have been open)
Chrome Cleaner 0.3 (Removes duplicate entries from installed-chrome.txt, and optionally removes entries that reference non-existent jar files.)
Translate Page 0.1 (Returns Seamonkey's menu option to translate current page with Google)
Extended Statusbar 1.0 (Displays the currently loading page's loading speed, percentage done, time left and loaded size ala Opera)
Favicon Picker 0.2.5 (Change and wipe favicons for individual bookmarks)
FillFilesUploadForm 0.2.1 (Automatically fills file upload forms - good when you're uploading tens of pages)
File Size 1.1.4 (Find the size of a document or file linked to)
HiddenPrefs 0.3 (Expose hidden preferences)
InfoLister 0.7.5 (List extensions, themes and useragent string - what I used to get this listing)
mid 0.2.0.2004120801 (Checks multiple dictionaries at once)
Named anchors 0.15 (List the anchors on the page with their names in the Page Info dialog box)
Pithy 0.2 (Restores Ctrl + I as a shortcut to open the Page Info box - simple but great. I never liked Ctrl + I opening the bookmarks sidebar anyday)
Popup Count 0.2.6 (Count the number of popups blocked so far)
Show Failed URL 0.1.4 (Shows the URL that failed instead of popping up an unhelpful dialog box - good when a link opened in a tab fails to load, so you don't lose the URL)
Linkification 0.9.19 - (Turns plain text email addresses or URLs into live links)
Translation Panel 1.4.13 (Popups a box with translation of selected text - rather buggy, also allows invocation of box where on-the-fly translation can be performed - that one works well)
vbrowseit 1.0 (Privacy browser - good for getting around proxies too)
wmlbrowser 0.6.5 (Views pages written in Wireless Markup Language - WML)
downTHEMall! 0.9.4 (Download all files on a page, filtered by name/extension)
*** Disabled Extensions (6):
User Agent Switcher 0.6.1 (Spoofs useragent string - good for anal IE-only sites, but usually it's easier to just open IE using ieview)
Hotmail Tabs 0.9 (For when M$N Hotmail was screwing around with link tags. Right now I'm fine since I enabled single-window mode, diverting new windows to tabs)
Auto Copy 0.3 (Select text to copy it, ala Trillian and mIRC)
AutoMarks 0.1 (Import bookmarks in the bookmark root folder so they display in autocomplete results - doesn't work for subfolders unfortunately)
Wikipedia 0.5.2 (Simplifies Wiki editing)
refspoof 0.6 (Spoof the HTTP referrer string)
Alt-Text for Links (Displays links' destination URLs in a tooltip window; Nice Title) does the job also, and more beautifully, but doesn't work for all links, so.)
*** Themes (1):
Firefox (default) 2.0 (Aww. I'm so boring. Anyhow theme install is broken on this build)
*** Plugins (11):
Mozilla Default Plug-in
Shockwave for Director
RealPlayer(tm) G2 LiveConnect-Enabled Plug-In (32-bit)
RealPlayer Version Plugin
Shockwave Flash
Nullsoft Winamp Plug-in for Gecko
Java Plug-in
Adobe Acrobat
QuickTime Plug-in 6.5.1
Microsoft® DRM
Windows Media Player Plug-in Dynamic Link Library
Xephyris would not approve.
Random Playlist Song: Mendelssohn - Violin Concerto in E minor op 64 - I- Allegro molto appassionato (Hilary Hahn, Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra)
Hilary Hahn’s version of the Mendelssohn concerto is outstanding. Her sweetness of tone is emphatic yet not overtly emotional, which if not properly gauged can kill a performance of this wonderful concerto. Technically, her playing is superb. She is given sympathetic and thoughtful support from the Oslo Philharmonic Orchestra led by Hugh Wolff. But there are occasions when I wished the orchestra didn’t stay right on her. This is an exuberant work were the soloist dazzles; there is no need for an orchestra to propel the violinist along. Hahn is in complete command of the Mendelssohn piece. Nothing is lacking in her interpretation of Mendelssohn, and although there might be more glorious versions, (Heifetz’s recording with Charles Munch and The Boston Symphony Orchestra or Menuhin with Wilhelm Furtwangler and The Berlin Philharmonic come to mind), her performance is first rate. The sound on the Hahn disc is extraordinary, owing to the high quality audio afforded by the SACD process.
Random Trivia bit: On September 11th, 1941, construction began on the Pentagon.
The Pentagon, headquarters for the United States defense department, was conceived as a way to consolidate military leadership into one building from the more than 20 they were occupying in the late 1930s.
Pentagon construction began on September 11, 1941 and the first occupants moved into the building in late April 1942. The building was completed in January 1943.
The Pentagon became the third target hit by a hijacked airplane on 9/11/01, the 60th anniversary of the start of its construction, killing 125 people in the building, plus 59 innocent passengers and crew on the plane.
A massive reconstruction project followed the attack, and people moved into the newly-repaired area less than one year later. (It Happened 9/11)
***
I am the Polar Bear Wildzord! You got to be cool if
you want to hang with me. I don't associate
with just anyone, you know.
Which Wildzord are you?
Which Wildzord are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
***
An embarrassingly parallel problem is a parallel computing problem that can easily, or very obviously, be split up into parts that can be computed in parallel. What these problems generally have in common is that each step can be computed independently from every other step, thus each step could be made to run on a separate processor to achieve quicker results. Examples of embarrassingly parallel problems include the computation of the Mandelbrot set, and brute force key searches in cryptography.
I don't see what's so embarrassing about it.
***
These people put things so well:
Fighting Fantasy
"Fantasy peddling titans Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone pioneered this disparate series of gamebooks during the early 1980s. Their names soon became closely associated with the booming franchise, and when their individual efforts tapered off, publishers Puffin ushered in additional authors to participate in the gamebook authoring melee, but chose not to soil the front covers with their names. Thus Steve and Ian's altruistic cover presence remained throughout the series, with the supplemental authors acquiring little fame, unlike their Ganjees-like overlords.
Each imaginatively titled 'interactive adventure' attempted various methods to disguise the inevitable linear route that comprised each 400-paragraphed gamebook. Early plots invited readers to journey through mountain, tower, forest and dungeon locales with Warlock of Firetop Mountain, Citadel of Chaos, Forest of Doom, and the oft-quoted seminal dungeon crawl, Deathtrap Dungeon. Jackson also crafted some fiendishly tricky titles such as House of Hell and Creature of Havoc.
The public's demand for the series, and gamebooks in general, began to wane towards the late '80s, but falling sales did not necessarily equate to weaker output. Dead of Night, Black Vein Prophecy, Legend of the Shadow Warriors, Moonrunner and Ian Livingstone's final effort, Legend of Zagor, were some notable examples of solid work that appeared towards the tail end of the series.
By the mid '90s however, new plots that could adhere to the relatively simplistic "FF" format seemed practically exhausted, and Puffin's inevitable gamebook implosion occurred less than 15 years after the big Fighting Fantasy bang of '82. And history looks set to repeat itself with the commercially stale rebirth by Wizard Books, who simply opted to reprint existing stock, albeit in a slightly different order, with updated covers.
An aesthetically pleasing iconic symbol of '80s youth fiction, the original numbered lime green spine paperbacks can still be seen today, in amongst charity shop bric-a-brac, second hand book shops, and eBay. For many '80s teens, Fighting Fantasy represented a never seen before exciting fusion of solitaire game play, reading, and fantasy escapism, and perhaps made reading, for some anyway, truly engaging for the very first time.
Nostalgically remembered predominately by 30-somethings today, the actual game play itself could be considered less appealing than the fondness of an ever-distant childhood memory.
Now turn to 400..."
***
10 songs
1. Open up the music player on your computer.
2. Set it to play your entire music collection.
3. Hit the “shuffle” command.
4. Tell us the title of the next ten songs that show up (with their musicians), no matter how embarrassing. That’s right, no skipping that Carpenters tune that will totally destroy your hip credibility. It’s time for total musical honesty.
5. Write it up in your blog or journal and link back to at least a couple of the other sites where you saw this.
6. If you get the same artist twice, you may skip the second (or third, or etc.) occurances. You don’t have to, but since randomness could mean you end up with a list of ten song with five artists, you can if you’d like.
Grieg - Holberg Suite - 2 - Sarabande (Andante)
Handel - Water Music - Adagio (Capella Istropolitana/Bohdan Warchal)
Muppets - Under The Boardwalk
Haydn - String Quartet No 48 In C, Op 64, No 1 - 3 Allegretto scherzando (Kodaly Quartet)
TBS and Friends [Ed: Toh Ban Sheng's 2000 farewell concert] - John Rutter - The Music's Always There With You
Beethoven - Piano Sonata 13 In E Flat Op 27 No 01 - 02 - Allegro molto e vivace (Arrau)
Victoria, Tomas Luis De - 02 - Jesum tradidit
Classic Disney Volume I - A Whale Of A Tale - 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954)
Chopin - Etude Op 25 No 5 (Mei-Ting Sun)
Bach - Wachet Auf, Ruft Uns Die Stimme - 2 - Recitative - Er Kommt, Er Kommt (Karl Richter)
Curiously, none of my Power Rangers music showed up *g* Of course, this is really embarrassing only for those who don't upload their playlists.
(Source: podeam)
***
"Hilary Hahn, despite her serious, thoughtful approach to music, seems to have succumbed to the current trend among today's performers--perhaps symptomatic of the jet-age--to play as fast as their fingers will carry them. The fast movements are taken at such speeds that they lose all their elegance, grace and charm, become prone to false accents, and sound aggressive, hectic and breathless."
After hearing a sample of BWV 1043 (included on the album this comment is about) I tend to agree.
***
Q: I want a low-stress high-paying job where I can help people. Do you think psychology is the right career for me?
A: No. Become a plumber. Just about anyone will pay you a small fortune to unclog a stopped-up toilet.
***
Someone offers this justification for Islamic polygyny:
I think what most people don't understand about polygamy is that it isn't just for the male's whims and fancies. There are laws governing polygamy, one of which is that if a man chooses to take a second wife, the first wife has to give permission. If she doesn't, it isn't polygamy as allowed by Islam. The fact that most men do take advantage of polygamy and give it a bad connotation shouldn't detract from its intent.
In polygamy, the man is expected to treat each wife fairly. In adultery, the feelings of the victimised party are hurt. The logic behind allowing adultery was that sometimes the wife is unable to satisfy her husband sexually or emotionally or whatever, so he takes another wife such that he can have his needs fulfilled without having to abandon his wife in favour of another woman.
Islam is a logical religion; polygamy allows a Muslim man to take up to four wives. If you notice the population trends, there are a lot more women than men. Polygamy gives every woman a chance to have a husband and to have legitimate children, if she should wish. Don't confuse polygamy with adultery, which is basically being unfaithful.
I dunno how to put it across effectively. There are books which can explain it better. But in some cases, a man is capable of loving two women with the same passion and if he's able to provide both with equally fulfilling marriages and lives, he should be allowed to do so rather than to have to choose one and leave the other one cold.
Sexual dissatisfaction isn't the only grounds for monogamy, but you can't deny that sex is an important part of marriage, since it contributes towards intimacty. And men do have stronger sexual drives than women, generally speaking. It's just taking into account that as women age, sometimes they aren't as giving, and it's better for a man to have sexual intercourse with a woman whom he is legally married to rather for him to go to Batam or whatever and get AIDS from the women there.
Me: Actually for younger ages, there are more men than women; women start outnumbering men only around the menopausal years or so. More and more women are choosing to remain single nowadays too. Thus, Islamic polygyny reduces the pool of available women for men.
Besides which, what happens if the husband is unable to satisfy his wife sexually or emotionally or whatever?
Going by your logic, polyandry and polygyny both should be legalised, with the former more prevalent when people are young and the latter when people are old.
(Not that I have a problem with that, but I'm betting that you'll recoil at the suggestion)
***
Interview with Wes Cherry, the guy who programmed Solitaire
*choke* There's a Livejournal community with Singapore Idol slash involving (you guessed it) Taufik and Sylvester. Someone, please bludgeon me over the head with a saucepan now.
The most irritating curriculum vitae in the world - in flash, set to music and sung out of tune and rhythm
***
People were expressing horror, shock and outrage at the case of the maggot-infested Shih Tzus in Pasir Ris:
A: These people ought to rot and die a slow and painful death.
Me: And I suppose that those who squash cockroaches should be squashed also.
B: Dogs are pets and cockroaches are pests. They are a world apart.
Me: Dogs are pets and humans are humans. They are a world apart.
How about the torture battery chickens go through? I'm sure they are a level above pests, no? Should we imprison chicken farmers in cages, with nowhere to move and with their noses cut off?
I suppose I have reaffirmed my reputation as a heartless bastard.
***
I have gone wild with my Firefox Extensions!
Last updated: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:22:12 GMT
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20041210 Firefox/1.0+ StumbleUpon/1.999
*** Extensions (35):
stumbleupon 1.999 (Visit and rate random sites - good when I'm bored)
Show Anchors 1.0 (Shows <a name> tags and lets you copy them to the clipboard with a click - good for linking to anchors)
Copy URL+ 1.2.2 (Copy page's URL, Title and/or selected text to clipboard)
Tweak Network 1.0 (Turbo charge with pipelining and boosting simultaneous connection settings)
OpenBook 1.2.0 (Customise Add Bookmark dialog)
Linky 2.2.0 (Open selected links in tabs)
Tabbrowser Preferences 1.1.1 (Tweak hidden tabbed browsing preferences)
Popup ALT Attribute 1.3.2004102501 (Displays img alt tags as tooltips)
ieview 0.84 (View screwy pages in IE)
Disable Targets For Downloads 0.9 (Attempts to prevent links to download files opening in a new window)
How'd I Get Here 0.1 (Goes to the page from which you were first referred to the current page)
Enhanced History Manager 0.4.1.02 (Brings the power of Seamonkey's History Manager back to Firefox)
keyconfig 20040910 (Customise shortcuts)
Autoclose Bookmark & History Folders 0.0.2 (Closes bookmark/history folders in the sidebar when you open new ones, ala IE)
Bookmark Duplicate Detector 0.0.1 (Prevents you from adding duplicate bookmarks)
Browser Uptime 1.6.0 (Displays how long the browser and this browser window have been open)
Chrome Cleaner 0.3 (Removes duplicate entries from installed-chrome.txt, and optionally removes entries that reference non-existent jar files.)
Translate Page 0.1 (Returns Seamonkey's menu option to translate current page with Google)
Extended Statusbar 1.0 (Displays the currently loading page's loading speed, percentage done, time left and loaded size ala Opera)
Favicon Picker 0.2.5 (Change and wipe favicons for individual bookmarks)
FillFilesUploadForm 0.2.1 (Automatically fills file upload forms - good when you're uploading tens of pages)
File Size 1.1.4 (Find the size of a document or file linked to)
HiddenPrefs 0.3 (Expose hidden preferences)
InfoLister 0.7.5 (List extensions, themes and useragent string - what I used to get this listing)
mid 0.2.0.2004120801 (Checks multiple dictionaries at once)
Named anchors 0.15 (List the anchors on the page with their names in the Page Info dialog box)
Pithy 0.2 (Restores Ctrl + I as a shortcut to open the Page Info box - simple but great. I never liked Ctrl + I opening the bookmarks sidebar anyday)
Popup Count 0.2.6 (Count the number of popups blocked so far)
Show Failed URL 0.1.4 (Shows the URL that failed instead of popping up an unhelpful dialog box - good when a link opened in a tab fails to load, so you don't lose the URL)
Linkification 0.9.19 - (Turns plain text email addresses or URLs into live links)
Translation Panel 1.4.13 (Popups a box with translation of selected text - rather buggy, also allows invocation of box where on-the-fly translation can be performed - that one works well)
vbrowseit 1.0 (Privacy browser - good for getting around proxies too)
wmlbrowser 0.6.5 (Views pages written in Wireless Markup Language - WML)
downTHEMall! 0.9.4 (Download all files on a page, filtered by name/extension)
*** Disabled Extensions (6):
User Agent Switcher 0.6.1 (Spoofs useragent string - good for anal IE-only sites, but usually it's easier to just open IE using ieview)
Hotmail Tabs 0.9 (For when M$N Hotmail was screwing around with link tags. Right now I'm fine since I enabled single-window mode, diverting new windows to tabs)
Auto Copy 0.3 (Select text to copy it, ala Trillian and mIRC)
AutoMarks 0.1 (Import bookmarks in the bookmark root folder so they display in autocomplete results - doesn't work for subfolders unfortunately)
Wikipedia 0.5.2 (Simplifies Wiki editing)
refspoof 0.6 (Spoof the HTTP referrer string)
Alt-Text for Links (Displays links' destination URLs in a tooltip window; Nice Title) does the job also, and more beautifully, but doesn't work for all links, so.)
*** Themes (1):
Firefox (default) 2.0 (Aww. I'm so boring. Anyhow theme install is broken on this build)
*** Plugins (11):
Mozilla Default Plug-in
Shockwave for Director
RealPlayer(tm) G2 LiveConnect-Enabled Plug-In (32-bit)
RealPlayer Version Plugin
Shockwave Flash
Nullsoft Winamp Plug-in for Gecko
Java Plug-in
Adobe Acrobat
QuickTime Plug-in 6.5.1
Microsoft® DRM
Windows Media Player Plug-in Dynamic Link Library
Xephyris would not approve.
Post ID: 110339976965536612
Sunday, December 19, 2004
"It is impossible to imagine Goethe or Beethoven being good at billiards or golf." - H. L. Mencken
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Worthy Is The Lamb That Was Slain - Amen (chorus)
Worthy is the lamb that was slain, and hath redeemed us to god by his blood, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Blessing and honour, glory and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the lamb, for ever and ever. Amen.
Thus ends my Messiah run. I may or may not have other christmas songs in this space, depending on my mood.
Random Trivia bit: Goya, a painter known for his paintings of the Spanish court in the late 18th century and early 19th century, suddenly went deaf, which spurred the creation of engravings of the underside and mysteries of court life, 'Los Caprichos'. (Art History Challenge)
***
A friend sent me a paper he had written for a conference, and I suggested a new, more refreshing aspect and (naturally) more controversial aspect of the topic to explore.
His reply?
1. there is utterly no information on it
2. won't have sources.
3. won't have sources, means u get fucked in conference
cos if u are breaking in with a new idea ar
u need lots of evidence. u mean like a long period of investigation
remember most academic conference are scientifically based, not rhetorically based.
Indeed, from my scattered readings of academic works, I find that they're littered with footnotes and attributions, like little homages by the authors to friends and mentors in the academic world.
Just why is it so important to have dozens, if not hundreds of footnotes? Are new ideas really so weak if they do not have the weight of previous ideas behind them?
I am reminded of 2 apt quotes on this issue:
"If you want someone to believe something you said, tell them Benjamin Franklin said it"
"The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but a transference of bones from one graveyard to another." - J. Frank Dobie
I do not see how heavy overreliance on old bones is going to help anyone advance the cause of knowledge and truth. As time goes by, lists of citations will just grow ever longer and advancement ever more difficult.
u have to remember in the academic world, stature is impt. no one is going to accept ur ideas if u have no stature
u got to build on others, b4 u can venture out to say ur own
if u read early works by social scientists, many of them did not create something out of nothing. but once they have some stature, their works are seen and respected or watever
but truth is, if u have no credentials at the start, it's not worth looking at lor
it's not like the economic market where the strongest and most creative can win
Ah well.
***
Hooker Barbie by Alexander Renault: A list of Barbie dolls with newly added realistic twists
I especially like:
#4) African Genital Mutilation Barbie: She has a perpetual frown but everyone in her village respects her now even more.
#6) Multiple Personality Barbie (AKA Dissociative Integration Disorder Barbie): She has difficulty recalling her own name and comes with nine different complete outfits. She usually prefers to be called Lilli, although no one seems to know why.
#9) Gang Bang Barbie: One of our most controversial Barbie dolls ever created, this Sagittarian free sexual spirit enjoys group sex even though Procensorship Feminist Barbie has forbidden her to talk about it or write her memoirs. Gang Bang Barbie is not available in Canada, Russia, or Utah.
#13) Gestapo Barbie: This little number is nobody's pushover. She comes complete with a black Nazi SS outfit and matching riding crop, all accented by her lovely all-American blonde hair and blue eyes. Pull her string and hear her shout, "SCHNELL!!! SCHNELL!!! SCHNELL!!!"
#14) Dr. Laura Barbie: Last, but certainly not least, we have this astute little social critic. She comes with a Ph.D. in physiology but tells everyone she is a psychologist. Dr. Laura Barbie tells everyone how to live in the glorious rays of God's light and espouses the importance of traditional family values. She is absolutely furious with Ken right now since he squealed about how she is actually divorced, has never procreated, and that no one in her family of origin speaks to her anymore.
Ah, but this page is intensely disrespectful so many different groups. That's the price of humour, I guess.
***
Invictus
Out of the night that covers me
Black as the Pit from pole to pole
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud
Under the bludgeoninigs off chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed
Beyong this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade
And yet the menance of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid
It matters not how strait the gate
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul
- William Earnest Henley
Not all poetry is irritating and incomprehensible. But then, this is 19th century poetry, so I guess modern poetry has been impelled to reach new depths of incomprehensibility in order to be "refreshing", "relevant" and "ground-breaking", instead of actually being good.
Commentary on Invictus:
"The poem represents secular humanism, the spirit of the Victorian age, you could say, the rise of Darwin and the sciences as a challenge to traditional thought and creationism. Really Matthew Arnold, a contemporary of Henley's, wrote of the same spirit.
Henley's other poems wouldn't be recognized. Henley can't compete with his contemporaries, such as Tennyson, Arnold, Browning, and Thomas Hardy -- the real luminaries of this period.
"Invictus" was his 15 minutes of fame."
***
Dec 17, 2004
Police did right in rejecting gay party
THE decision of the police not to give a licence for the Christmas 'gay party' planned by Fridae.com ('It's no go for planned Christmas 'gay party' '; ST, Dec 9), as this undermines the public interest, is to be strongly commended.
Given the alarming Aids epidemic Singapore is facing, any event which would threaten to aggravate this problem and endanger the public health cannot be allowed.
The police noted in their press statement that they had noticed same-sex couples 'openly kissing and intimately touching each other' during other Fridae.com-organised events. Furthermore, they noted that the use by patrons of toilets meant for the opposite sex suggested most patrons were 'probably gays or lesbians and that the event was almost exclusively for them'.
As Straits Times Senior Writer Andy Ho noted recently: 'It is homosexuals who engaged in condomless anopenetrative sex that are culpable of spreading HIV in Singapore', causing the 'second wave of HIV here and worldwide'.
To facilitate or allow such activities to carry on unchecked would constitute a gross breach of the public trust and be highly irresponsible. The Aids problem cannot be ignored.
Blatant flaunting of homosexual activities is offensive to the conservative mainstream which wants to see enduring standards of public decency and morality upheld - it would be regressive to allow this to degenerate.
It is heartening to read that the police authorities will be scrutinising applications for similar future events with an eye to protecting the health of our nation and our social well-being. Such vigilance warrants the nation's gratitude and thanks.
Thio Su Mien (Dr)
The Moral Majority strikes again. This is just begging for parody.
July 17, 1964
Police did right in rejecting religious procession
THE decision of the police not to give a license for the religious 'procession to commemorate the Prophet Mohammad's birthday' planned by the Muslim society ('It's no go for planned religious 'procession'; ST, Jul 9), as this undermines the public interest, is to be strongly commended.
Given the alarming religious and racial tension Singapore is facing, any event which would threaten to aggravate this problem and endanger public safety cannot be allowed.
The police noted in their press statement that they had noticed Muslim men 'touching their foreheads to mosque floors' during other events organised by the Muslim community. Furthermore, they noted that the use of mosques exclusively by men suggested that women were 'discriminated against by Islam and that the event was almost exclusively for them [men]'.
As Straits Times Senior Writer Bob Tan noted recently: 'It is Muslims who engage in global Jihad, suicide bombings and running amok with parangs, that are culpable of wrecking the fragile peace we have in our fait city', causing 'the populace to live in fear'.
To facilitate or allow such activities to carry on unchecked would constitute a gross breach of the public trust and be highly irresponsible. The religious problem cannot be ignored.
Blatant flaunting of muslim activities is offensive to the conservative mainstream which is intolerant of other races and religions, and uses this secret intolerance as an excuse to uphold 'public standards of decency and morality' - it would be regressive to allow this to degenerate.
It is heartening to read that the police authorities will be scrutinising applications for similar future events with an eye to protecting the health of our nation and our social well-being. Such vigilance warrants the nation's gratitude and thanks.
George Lim
I trust all right-minded people will find the above parody offensive, bigoted, wrong-headed, intolerant and inflammatory.
They may then proceed to consider just how homophobia is different from religiophobia, or otherwise, as the case might be.
Someone commented that she would never have seen a thread of similarity between religiophobia & homophobia other than that they both are phobias.
The similarity is that they both basically come from the line of thinking: "They are different. I don't like what's different. What's different is wrong and immoral. Therefore we should stamp out those who deviate"
***
110 China women held in Geylang raid
The last sentence is instructive: "During the eight-hour operation, police also booked 57 vehicles for illegal parking in Geylang and towed away four motorcycles parked illegally near Lorong 15."
It's like how all the CCTV cameras they installed for "security" reasons to "deter terrorists" will eventually be used for much more mundane purposes, to enforce pre-existing laws. The rationale? "Since they're already there we might as well use them". And so a measure ostensibly for security will in fact be used for normal law enforcement.
***
for casino:
"As someone who has had a relative gamble away a fortune, I am for a casino. The serious addicts will gamble whether or not there is a casino. There are underground dens and plenty of people to entice you if you know where to look. And trust me, those who are predisposed to getting addicted will find a way to lose their pants through gambling.
If we do have a casino, the difference is that the huge sums of money lost to illegal gambling dens will go to our coffers. And we will definitely get more tourist revenue. Did you know there are plenty of Chinese tourists who go to nearby countries with briefcases full of US dollars to gamble? They can afford to lose hundreds of thousands just for the kick. These are the ones whose money the singapore casino would target.
It seems to me that this is an instance of the S'pore government changing its stance to suit the times ( ie, status as a hub is being threatened by malaysia, hk, china, korea so an alternative revenue source is needed), and some people aren't appreciating it, eh? If you don't have a gambling streak in you, even if there were ten casinos in the vicinity, you wouldn't be tempted."
***
Anime Ethics and Legality FAQ 2.01
Basically, all this means is that you should avoid getting people at the related companies ticked at you. If you do something that annoys them, and itís barely legal (or even completely legal), they can STILL sue you. Sure, they might lose the suit, but in the meantime youíre out a lot of money for your lawyer, not to mention time and stress involved.
Corporate misuse of the law is most unnerving
I call this the "Fushigi Yuugi" effect. While it's impossible to -prove- that this series would have never come out in the US without the extensive fansubbing efforts of Karen Duffy, I don't know anybody that believes otherwise.
Lax copyright rules can actually help companies.
***
Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? - "Furedi argues that the expansion of higher education in the UK has occurred side by side with a widespread erosion of educational standards and a steady rise in cultural illiteracy. The explanation for this paradoxical state of affairs lies, according to Furedi, in the rise of an instrumentalist ethos that treats knowledge and culture as means for achieving economic and political objectives rather than as ends in themselves. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is now regarded by the political elite as a bit dodgy (to quote Charles Clarke, the secretary of state for education); instead, education must now justify itself in terms of the economic benefits it provides to stakeholders."
Cleopatra: Scientist, Not Seductress? - "Medieval Arabic texts suggest that Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII was a brilliant early mathematician, chemist and philosopher who wrote science books and met weekly with a team of scientific experts, according to a forthcoming book. If historians can verify the medieval accounts, then the real Cleopatra likely bore little resemblance to the sexy seductress described by Greek and Roman scholars."
'It was not just a lighthouse to guide ships, it was a magnificent telescope and it had a huge lens that could burn the oncoming ships of enemies that were going to attack Egypt.' - I think this Arab scholar has had too much coffee.
Conversational Terrorism: How NOT to Talk! - "FILIBUSTER: To take an extraordinary amount of time or go to great technical depth to wear out the other person and get time on your side. The other person is pushed to give up and agree with you rather than endure the torture of hearing you go through another sincere, long-winded answer."
Call to legalise live organtrade - Commentary: "The likelihood of such a problem cropping up would be for such transplants such as kidneys and livers amongst others. And while it is probably very likely that such transplants would go to the rich, we have to face the fact that already money is important in the kind, type, quality and extend of medical treatment that can be gotten. Even if one wants to consider equity, at least this frees up dialysis machines and beds and waiting lists so why not? The trade apparently is flourishing so regulation would be useful to minimise the harm and prevent abuses already occuring today."
Weird Thunderbird extension - "The idea behind Quitomzilla is the one of positive reinforcement. It has been proven to be a good method to help people quitting cigarettes. In Spain (where the extension comes from), the Windows app. "Quitómetro" (brother of Quitomzilla) has been supported by two big societies helping people to quit cigarettes."
matching tracksuits: Polish Christmas Carols - "Christmas in Poland is not the commercialized ugliness that it is in America (though it is changing). Since Poland is around 95% Catholic, Christmas has an enormous religious significance, second only to Easter. It stands to reason, then, that there are numerous Polish Christmas carols. So, as a gift to anyone who’s interested, here are six Polish Christmas carols."
The History of the Paperclip
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Worthy Is The Lamb That Was Slain - Amen (chorus)
Worthy is the lamb that was slain, and hath redeemed us to god by his blood, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. Blessing and honour, glory and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the lamb, for ever and ever. Amen.
Thus ends my Messiah run. I may or may not have other christmas songs in this space, depending on my mood.
Random Trivia bit: Goya, a painter known for his paintings of the Spanish court in the late 18th century and early 19th century, suddenly went deaf, which spurred the creation of engravings of the underside and mysteries of court life, 'Los Caprichos'. (Art History Challenge)
***
A friend sent me a paper he had written for a conference, and I suggested a new, more refreshing aspect and (naturally) more controversial aspect of the topic to explore.
His reply?
1. there is utterly no information on it
2. won't have sources.
3. won't have sources, means u get fucked in conference
cos if u are breaking in with a new idea ar
u need lots of evidence. u mean like a long period of investigation
remember most academic conference are scientifically based, not rhetorically based.
Indeed, from my scattered readings of academic works, I find that they're littered with footnotes and attributions, like little homages by the authors to friends and mentors in the academic world.
Just why is it so important to have dozens, if not hundreds of footnotes? Are new ideas really so weak if they do not have the weight of previous ideas behind them?
I am reminded of 2 apt quotes on this issue:
"If you want someone to believe something you said, tell them Benjamin Franklin said it"
"The average Ph.D. thesis is nothing but a transference of bones from one graveyard to another." - J. Frank Dobie
I do not see how heavy overreliance on old bones is going to help anyone advance the cause of knowledge and truth. As time goes by, lists of citations will just grow ever longer and advancement ever more difficult.
u have to remember in the academic world, stature is impt. no one is going to accept ur ideas if u have no stature
u got to build on others, b4 u can venture out to say ur own
if u read early works by social scientists, many of them did not create something out of nothing. but once they have some stature, their works are seen and respected or watever
but truth is, if u have no credentials at the start, it's not worth looking at lor
it's not like the economic market where the strongest and most creative can win
Ah well.
***
Hooker Barbie by Alexander Renault: A list of Barbie dolls with newly added realistic twists
I especially like:
#4) African Genital Mutilation Barbie: She has a perpetual frown but everyone in her village respects her now even more.
#6) Multiple Personality Barbie (AKA Dissociative Integration Disorder Barbie): She has difficulty recalling her own name and comes with nine different complete outfits. She usually prefers to be called Lilli, although no one seems to know why.
#9) Gang Bang Barbie: One of our most controversial Barbie dolls ever created, this Sagittarian free sexual spirit enjoys group sex even though Procensorship Feminist Barbie has forbidden her to talk about it or write her memoirs. Gang Bang Barbie is not available in Canada, Russia, or Utah.
#13) Gestapo Barbie: This little number is nobody's pushover. She comes complete with a black Nazi SS outfit and matching riding crop, all accented by her lovely all-American blonde hair and blue eyes. Pull her string and hear her shout, "SCHNELL!!! SCHNELL!!! SCHNELL!!!"
#14) Dr. Laura Barbie: Last, but certainly not least, we have this astute little social critic. She comes with a Ph.D. in physiology but tells everyone she is a psychologist. Dr. Laura Barbie tells everyone how to live in the glorious rays of God's light and espouses the importance of traditional family values. She is absolutely furious with Ken right now since he squealed about how she is actually divorced, has never procreated, and that no one in her family of origin speaks to her anymore.
Ah, but this page is intensely disrespectful so many different groups. That's the price of humour, I guess.
***
Invictus
Out of the night that covers me
Black as the Pit from pole to pole
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud
Under the bludgeoninigs off chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed
Beyong this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade
And yet the menance of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid
It matters not how strait the gate
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul
- William Earnest Henley
Not all poetry is irritating and incomprehensible. But then, this is 19th century poetry, so I guess modern poetry has been impelled to reach new depths of incomprehensibility in order to be "refreshing", "relevant" and "ground-breaking", instead of actually being good.
Commentary on Invictus:
"The poem represents secular humanism, the spirit of the Victorian age, you could say, the rise of Darwin and the sciences as a challenge to traditional thought and creationism. Really Matthew Arnold, a contemporary of Henley's, wrote of the same spirit.
Henley's other poems wouldn't be recognized. Henley can't compete with his contemporaries, such as Tennyson, Arnold, Browning, and Thomas Hardy -- the real luminaries of this period.
"Invictus" was his 15 minutes of fame."
***
Dec 17, 2004
Police did right in rejecting gay party
THE decision of the police not to give a licence for the Christmas 'gay party' planned by Fridae.com ('It's no go for planned Christmas 'gay party' '; ST, Dec 9), as this undermines the public interest, is to be strongly commended.
Given the alarming Aids epidemic Singapore is facing, any event which would threaten to aggravate this problem and endanger the public health cannot be allowed.
The police noted in their press statement that they had noticed same-sex couples 'openly kissing and intimately touching each other' during other Fridae.com-organised events. Furthermore, they noted that the use by patrons of toilets meant for the opposite sex suggested most patrons were 'probably gays or lesbians and that the event was almost exclusively for them'.
As Straits Times Senior Writer Andy Ho noted recently: 'It is homosexuals who engaged in condomless anopenetrative sex that are culpable of spreading HIV in Singapore', causing the 'second wave of HIV here and worldwide'.
To facilitate or allow such activities to carry on unchecked would constitute a gross breach of the public trust and be highly irresponsible. The Aids problem cannot be ignored.
Blatant flaunting of homosexual activities is offensive to the conservative mainstream which wants to see enduring standards of public decency and morality upheld - it would be regressive to allow this to degenerate.
It is heartening to read that the police authorities will be scrutinising applications for similar future events with an eye to protecting the health of our nation and our social well-being. Such vigilance warrants the nation's gratitude and thanks.
Thio Su Mien (Dr)
The Moral Majority strikes again. This is just begging for parody.
July 17, 1964
Police did right in rejecting religious procession
THE decision of the police not to give a license for the religious 'procession to commemorate the Prophet Mohammad's birthday' planned by the Muslim society ('It's no go for planned religious 'procession'; ST, Jul 9), as this undermines the public interest, is to be strongly commended.
Given the alarming religious and racial tension Singapore is facing, any event which would threaten to aggravate this problem and endanger public safety cannot be allowed.
The police noted in their press statement that they had noticed Muslim men 'touching their foreheads to mosque floors' during other events organised by the Muslim community. Furthermore, they noted that the use of mosques exclusively by men suggested that women were 'discriminated against by Islam and that the event was almost exclusively for them [men]'.
As Straits Times Senior Writer Bob Tan noted recently: 'It is Muslims who engage in global Jihad, suicide bombings and running amok with parangs, that are culpable of wrecking the fragile peace we have in our fait city', causing 'the populace to live in fear'.
To facilitate or allow such activities to carry on unchecked would constitute a gross breach of the public trust and be highly irresponsible. The religious problem cannot be ignored.
Blatant flaunting of muslim activities is offensive to the conservative mainstream which is intolerant of other races and religions, and uses this secret intolerance as an excuse to uphold 'public standards of decency and morality' - it would be regressive to allow this to degenerate.
It is heartening to read that the police authorities will be scrutinising applications for similar future events with an eye to protecting the health of our nation and our social well-being. Such vigilance warrants the nation's gratitude and thanks.
George Lim
I trust all right-minded people will find the above parody offensive, bigoted, wrong-headed, intolerant and inflammatory.
They may then proceed to consider just how homophobia is different from religiophobia, or otherwise, as the case might be.
Someone commented that she would never have seen a thread of similarity between religiophobia & homophobia other than that they both are phobias.
The similarity is that they both basically come from the line of thinking: "They are different. I don't like what's different. What's different is wrong and immoral. Therefore we should stamp out those who deviate"
***
110 China women held in Geylang raid
The last sentence is instructive: "During the eight-hour operation, police also booked 57 vehicles for illegal parking in Geylang and towed away four motorcycles parked illegally near Lorong 15."
It's like how all the CCTV cameras they installed for "security" reasons to "deter terrorists" will eventually be used for much more mundane purposes, to enforce pre-existing laws. The rationale? "Since they're already there we might as well use them". And so a measure ostensibly for security will in fact be used for normal law enforcement.
***
for casino:
"As someone who has had a relative gamble away a fortune, I am for a casino. The serious addicts will gamble whether or not there is a casino. There are underground dens and plenty of people to entice you if you know where to look. And trust me, those who are predisposed to getting addicted will find a way to lose their pants through gambling.
If we do have a casino, the difference is that the huge sums of money lost to illegal gambling dens will go to our coffers. And we will definitely get more tourist revenue. Did you know there are plenty of Chinese tourists who go to nearby countries with briefcases full of US dollars to gamble? They can afford to lose hundreds of thousands just for the kick. These are the ones whose money the singapore casino would target.
It seems to me that this is an instance of the S'pore government changing its stance to suit the times ( ie, status as a hub is being threatened by malaysia, hk, china, korea so an alternative revenue source is needed), and some people aren't appreciating it, eh? If you don't have a gambling streak in you, even if there were ten casinos in the vicinity, you wouldn't be tempted."
***
Anime Ethics and Legality FAQ 2.01
Basically, all this means is that you should avoid getting people at the related companies ticked at you. If you do something that annoys them, and itís barely legal (or even completely legal), they can STILL sue you. Sure, they might lose the suit, but in the meantime youíre out a lot of money for your lawyer, not to mention time and stress involved.
Corporate misuse of the law is most unnerving
I call this the "Fushigi Yuugi" effect. While it's impossible to -prove- that this series would have never come out in the US without the extensive fansubbing efforts of Karen Duffy, I don't know anybody that believes otherwise.
Lax copyright rules can actually help companies.
***
Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone? - "Furedi argues that the expansion of higher education in the UK has occurred side by side with a widespread erosion of educational standards and a steady rise in cultural illiteracy. The explanation for this paradoxical state of affairs lies, according to Furedi, in the rise of an instrumentalist ethos that treats knowledge and culture as means for achieving economic and political objectives rather than as ends in themselves. The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is now regarded by the political elite as a bit dodgy (to quote Charles Clarke, the secretary of state for education); instead, education must now justify itself in terms of the economic benefits it provides to stakeholders."
Cleopatra: Scientist, Not Seductress? - "Medieval Arabic texts suggest that Egyptian queen Cleopatra VII was a brilliant early mathematician, chemist and philosopher who wrote science books and met weekly with a team of scientific experts, according to a forthcoming book. If historians can verify the medieval accounts, then the real Cleopatra likely bore little resemblance to the sexy seductress described by Greek and Roman scholars."
'It was not just a lighthouse to guide ships, it was a magnificent telescope and it had a huge lens that could burn the oncoming ships of enemies that were going to attack Egypt.' - I think this Arab scholar has had too much coffee.
Conversational Terrorism: How NOT to Talk! - "FILIBUSTER: To take an extraordinary amount of time or go to great technical depth to wear out the other person and get time on your side. The other person is pushed to give up and agree with you rather than endure the torture of hearing you go through another sincere, long-winded answer."
Call to legalise live organtrade - Commentary: "The likelihood of such a problem cropping up would be for such transplants such as kidneys and livers amongst others. And while it is probably very likely that such transplants would go to the rich, we have to face the fact that already money is important in the kind, type, quality and extend of medical treatment that can be gotten. Even if one wants to consider equity, at least this frees up dialysis machines and beds and waiting lists so why not? The trade apparently is flourishing so regulation would be useful to minimise the harm and prevent abuses already occuring today."
Weird Thunderbird extension - "The idea behind Quitomzilla is the one of positive reinforcement. It has been proven to be a good method to help people quitting cigarettes. In Spain (where the extension comes from), the Windows app. "Quitómetro" (brother of Quitomzilla) has been supported by two big societies helping people to quit cigarettes."
matching tracksuits: Polish Christmas Carols - "Christmas in Poland is not the commercialized ugliness that it is in America (though it is changing). Since Poland is around 95% Catholic, Christmas has an enormous religious significance, second only to Easter. It stands to reason, then, that there are numerous Polish Christmas carols. So, as a gift to anyone who’s interested, here are six Polish Christmas carols."
The History of the Paperclip
Post ID: 110334541850249182
Saturday, December 18, 2004
"Nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all" - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - The Trumpet Shall Sound (bass, air)
The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.
***
Diane Kruger looks *much* better in National Treasure than she did in Troy. At least now she would be able to launch a couple of hundred ships.
I recently asked Andrew to guess how long it'd been since I'd had a proper haircut, and he wagered it was 3 months - less than half of the real figure. Boo hoo.
Boat Quay is a really bad place to go to eat. If you drive there, parking may be a problem. Once you reach there and stroll down the riverside to look for a place to eat, you'll be accosted by touts as you walk by almost every eating house, and the thing is they all look like they serve the same type of Chinese food. Furthermore, with the exception of Al Dente, none of the restaurants are that great, really. And if sit down outside to eat, the harassment doesn't stop - people come up to you to try to sell you rubbish.
In a corner of Tanjong Pagar is a little slice of Malaysia - literally, for the KTM (Keratapi Tanah Melayu) station there is considered Malaysian land. The station itself is described as a "striking art-deco station". Personally I think it looks more like a dump, reminiscent of the old School of Military Medicine (SMM) in Ulu Pandan.
The sign in Malay at the entrance to the station and the uneven road behind it remind one of Ma-laysia, and the ticketing counters operate at Malaysian efficiency - on one day, two ticketing counters were manned, but at one the man had closed the counter and was talking to his friend on the phone.
At the rear of the station is a more pleasant aspect of Malaysia - a food centre. Hawkers set up their pushcart stalls by the uneven roadside - satay, Ramlee burgers (with proper Ramlee burger-wrapping paper too), Otah, and even a hookah store (those Middle Eastern receptacles with pipes through which multiple people can smokeganja various sweet smelling substances), while groups of people (mostly Malays) dine at tables on either side of the road. And inside the station itself there are more stalls, though these are less temporary and haphazard in nature, and resemble more what food courts look like, albeit Malaysian food courts and not Singaporean ones. From what little I tried, the food wasn't bad, except that it was all halal (naturally) and sold at Singaporean, not Malaysian, prices.
***
"Any organisation which boasts one Statement of Purpose. one Vision, five Values, six Goals, seven Strategic Priorities and eight Key Performance Indicators without anyclear correlation between them is producing a recipe for total confusion and exasperation." (Francis Wheen, 2004:p.56, quoted by Singabloodypore)
Management bullshit must die!
***
Dilbert
Dilbert's Mom: Your cousin Lauren just got her degree in English. Can you give her some career advice?
Dilbert: Would you enjoy scratching out a meager living in a frustrating work environment?
Lauren: I've never thought about it.
Dilbert: Obviously.
Is Dilbert describing the job prospects for English degree holders? Or those at this company?
***
Unemployment-Related Benefits Systems in Singapore
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Singapore does not implement any unemployment benefits system dedicated to
helping the unemployed. It is because the government considers the best way to
assist individuals who are retrenched or unemployed is to help them seek re-
employment instead of handing out financial support such as unemployment
benefits.
2. The unemployed can get financial assistance from some public assistance
schemes to alleviate their immediate financial hardship such as: Public Assistance
Scheme, Interim (Short Term) Financial Assistance, Rent and Utilities Assistance
Scheme and Medifund. Also, there are some other financial assistance schemes
rendered by non-government agencies. However, all these schemes aim to
provide assistance to those who are “less fortunate” and are not confined to the
unemployed.
3. As the major source of cash relief, the Public Assistance Scheme does not
guarantee adequate assistance to the unemployed. The level of benefits is 41%
lower than the lowest 20% of household expenditure required for subsistence and
the scheme is administered strictly and only half of the numbers of application
are approved.
4. For the unemployed, the assistance provided by the government departments or
non-government agencies mainly in the form of job training, course fee
subsidization, counseling and job data bank services
Also of interest,
Coping with Retrenchment, from the Horse's Mouth.
***
Steven Lim strikes again
I witnessed the most shocking thing that ever happened in every day life to me, for a long long time.
I was walking at the underpass between Orchard MRT and CK Tang (you know the one with the blind accordian player, you know him!) and when I came across what I thought was the most attention grabbing marketing gimmick in a very long time. There was a girl standing in the middle of the path with A4 print outs on her back and on her forehead which had " www.stevenlim.net" on it.
The girl was using a newspapers to cover her face too. Wow, I thought to myself. This "Steven Lim" guy has a completely new "out of the box" method, perhaps "artsy-fartsy" approach to getting his website known! I mean, EVERY SINGLE PERSON was literally stopping dead in their tracks to look from either direction!
Excited, I quickly called my friend Elgin that I was supposed to meet at Far East Plaza to come along to have a look. Before Elgin arrived, I found a tall guy in his late 20s wearing a black sleeveless tight t-shirt hanging around the side of the underpass, and I presumed him to be the "Marketing minded Steven Lim". I told him that I was impressed by the idea and asked him how he got it. He told me proudly that he thought about it himself. However, I couldn't help but keep looking at the girl but feel that something wasn't right. I also noticed that the girl had two girls on either side of her who seemed to be encouraging her in a "don't worry, we're here for you" kind of way.
"Who is that girl? Did you employ her? She's very brave! Where did you get her from?"
Steven replied by saying that it was his girlfriend. The horror hit me when when her friends came up to me and told me and Elgin that she was doing it completely against her will. Steven has asked her to do it with funny sunglasses and when she refused, he got angry. Apparently she loved him so much that she didn't want him to be angry with her and so she'd rather bite the bullet and cover her weeping eyes with the newspaper the whole time.
And what did this 28 year old hunkalot Steven do? He stood by the side and soaked up the glory and attention that he got as a result of his 16 year old girlfriend's humiliation. Angered, Elgin and I questioned him about his "business practices" and his only defence were lines like "I'm paying her $5 an hour" and "Of course I got unhappy when she didn't want to do it for me, it's only natural"! The whole time his poor girlfriend stood crying next to us, and her friends started looking to us for reason and support.
Elgin and I went on to give him a half an hour lecture on how NOT to treat his girlfriend and suggested other ideas to market himself without having to resort to emotional blackmail. His final response was "Thanks for the advice, but please visit my website. It's really good. Ask your friends to visit it as well!"
I felt so bad that ANY girl had to live with loving such a person that I ended up giving her a $300 watch loupe that I just happened to have on me. I just felt so sorry for her, and even more than such guys existed.
During the half hour lecture, he also asked me to support him on Singaporean Idol, let other people know about his website and how interesting all the new stuff is, and how he thinks he'll succeed in life by doing things like that.
God Bless his girlfriend, and all who stood with her.
http://pachome1.pacific.net.sg/~freestyle1279/sl.jpg
PS: I've attached a photo that I took of the "ad campaign" before I found out the truth. I'd like to hear your views, but please let me know if you're going to do anything drastic or public with this.
... dunno wat the girl sees in him!
Ah, he's going after 16 year olds again.
***
Via a reverse search referral lookup:
"Anyway, if you really wanna know and if u allow for my superficial opinion, i think miss singapore is simply and horrendously ugly!!What kind of scary face is that?? So obviously, beauty wasnt a criterion in the Miss Singapore World 2004 paegant. What i like about such international contests though is the fact that beautiful women from all cultures, nationalities around the world take part. Then u realise how ugly singapore women really are!! I personally feel the prettiest singaporean ladies are of malay ethnicity but its a pity many who are willing to take part usually dont get chosen to represent singapore. Usually some bimbo nus undergraduate who looks like she has piles of makeup on her gets picked and of course she fails to make a favourable impression in the international arena so maybe should just stick to staying in the library!! "
I got another search for "mama murtad" so I went to explore a bit, and have finally found out what Murtads are, which was really hard since few of the pages you get when searching for it tell you what murtads are, or at least not in English:
Murtads from Malaysia
Providing support and relevant information for Ex-Muslims who are prejudiced and discriminated
Welcome to Murtads from Malaysia!
This site is about and dedicated to:
- people who are living in Malaysia and are forced to be Muslims when they don't want to be Muslims;
- people who are from Malaysia that were forced to be Muslims when they were in Malaysia;
- people who are no longer living in Malaysia but still have problems as a result of not being a Muslim and
- any person that has abandoned the Islamic faith and lifestyle that is related to Malaysia somehow!
The stories of the murtads are sad indeed.
Interestingly enough, there's an Ex-Muslim meetup group in Kuala Lumpur with 12 members. If they ever meet, the police can raid the meetup and imprison them. Lucky they're not in Kelantan or Terengganu, or they would get the death penalty, albeit a suspended one "because of non-co-operation of the Police- and Prison Departments which are Federal departments".
***
Singapore Ink on the drivel that they show on Channel 8:
"The situation with local drama productions is in some ways worse than that with variety shows. We are past what my friend astutely calls the “Dark Ages” of internecine competition when MediaCorp simply packed its timeslots with popular Hongkong or Taiwanese dramas, effectively giving up the local drama game in favour of capturing the audiences. Even today, as local drama production has improved, MediaCorp’s philosophy has clearly changed in favour of longer soap opera-style dramas, as well as an unrelenting bias towards low-budget family dramas. The other day I finished watching the excellent 1999 Japanese drama Koi no Kiseki, & I was reminded that really “good” evil characters have been MIA from local dramas for years now. I don’t just mean people who cackle at the hero/heroine celebrating their achievements at breaking up families or swindling people of money. I also mean psychologically complex characters who are integral parts of the story, not one-dimensional walk-on baddies like snatch thieves or big cheats e.g. Liu Haisheng in 喜临门 who are just there to prop up the good guys.
Besides really “good” evil characters, MediaCorp also no longer does vaguely-Tang dynasty period dramas*, ghost dramas, horror/mystery dramas, fantasy dramas, wild comedies, great tragedies, or anything that strays too much from the big-families-plus-three/four-sided-relationships formula. Events like the Star Awards are a joke when MediaCorp produces 6 dramas a year & 5 come up for “Best Drama.” The company has many good actors & actresses, people who cut their chops on meatier & varied roles in the past, but these days they seem to be more celebrities because they appear as such (e.g. charity shows, tour programmes) & not because they actually impressed with recent acting. MediaCorp has no problem justifying this - “but we’re just catering to our audiences!” - just as in the “Dark Ages,” but I think it’s clear that it’s a loss to those audiences as well. You almost want to see something campy, like many of their mid-90s telemovies, rather than more of the play-it-safe kind. (Even something like the engaging, if not-so-original Six Weeks now showing on Channel i, for instance.) It is possible that this trend will take us to a pseudo-Indian or Filipino environment where people are famous because they are famous, less because they are talented or they had memorable roles. I don’t know how most Singaporeans feel about this, but I think this is the wrong way to go."
Meanwhile, in a comments box there is more hilarious casino scaremongering:
"I believe that these Casinos are going to bring nothing but trouble. Teenagers nowadays already have a habit of hanging around shopping centres at night, flirting with girls who behave like prostitutes. I cannot believe what will happen when these Casinos are built- teenagers will start Gambling and there is going to be more room for illegal activities like Smokoing and Secret Socities to have meetings. Worst of all will be the Potential Terror Threat on these Casinos.. They’ll be attracting Terrorrists, and not tourists! Please Think of your children’s sefety! Do you know how many robberies and murders have taken place in Casinos Overseas? Robbers will lose ineterest in banks- the Casinos are going to fetch much more! I Hope that the government will prevent this big mistake from being made. It is so Straight-forward and obvious that these Casinos will bring more trouble that trade!" (Emphasis mine, errors in original)
I'm sure the terrorists will want to bomb the casinos, right after they destroy the den of sin that is Asia-Pacific Breweries.
***
Couple arraigned in child sacrifice case; lawyers argue no harm intended - "Attorneys for a Farmington woman and her boyfriend, charged with entering St. Mary’s Church to sacrifice her children, argued Friday they never meant to do anyone harm."
Party Advice: Avoid Bare Copier Sitting - "British workers have been told: Have a merry Christmas - but skip the mistletoe, don't dance on the desks and definitely don't perch bare-bottomed on the photocopier. Such are the horrors of the modern British office party highlighted Friday in a welter of advice which, to some minds, would kill the fun."
Slain man's remains found in storage freezer - "A woman killed her husband, stuffed his body into a freezer, then shipped it to a Somerville storage facility, where it stayed for years until police found the remains yesterday, authorities said."
Man wearing bra, thong flashes girls - "Police are looking for a flasher with a flair for feminine fashion. Authorities say two young girls were walking to a coffee shop Friday when they were flashed by a man wearing a dark bathrobe. However, the man wasn't completely naked. He was wearing women's lingerie - namely, a bra and a thong."
Big league - "The average Australian woman is a size 16 and weighs 8kg heavier than her American counterpart, according to authoritive new international research. Australian men are also 3kg heavier than American males, the joint study by the University of Adelaide and US researchers shows."
Linguist Deciphers Uses of Word 'Dude' - "A linguist from the University of Pittsburgh has published a scholarly paper deconstructing and deciphering the word "dude," contending it is much more than a catchall for lazy, inarticulate surfers, skaters, slackers and teenagers... the word derives its power from something he calls cool solidarity — an effortless kinship that's not too intimate. Cool solidarity is especially important to young men who are under social pressure to be close with other young men, but not enough to be suspected as gay."
Bad Science product of the year - "The winner was Space Tomato Number One, part of the Chinese government's "space breeding" project, where radiation in space is used to create comic book mutations and giant space plants, including tomatoes weighing almost a kilogram. It was never made entirely clear why the mutations would be beneficial, or why you needed to be in space to get irradiated. The Chinese news agency Xinhua stated that, "in China the radiation effect is always positive, leading to bigger and better vegetables that will revolutionise agriculture.""
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - The Trumpet Shall Sound (bass, air)
The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.
***
Diane Kruger looks *much* better in National Treasure than she did in Troy. At least now she would be able to launch a couple of hundred ships.
I recently asked Andrew to guess how long it'd been since I'd had a proper haircut, and he wagered it was 3 months - less than half of the real figure. Boo hoo.
Boat Quay is a really bad place to go to eat. If you drive there, parking may be a problem. Once you reach there and stroll down the riverside to look for a place to eat, you'll be accosted by touts as you walk by almost every eating house, and the thing is they all look like they serve the same type of Chinese food. Furthermore, with the exception of Al Dente, none of the restaurants are that great, really. And if sit down outside to eat, the harassment doesn't stop - people come up to you to try to sell you rubbish.
In a corner of Tanjong Pagar is a little slice of Malaysia - literally, for the KTM (Keratapi Tanah Melayu) station there is considered Malaysian land. The station itself is described as a "striking art-deco station". Personally I think it looks more like a dump, reminiscent of the old School of Military Medicine (SMM) in Ulu Pandan.
The sign in Malay at the entrance to the station and the uneven road behind it remind one of Ma-laysia, and the ticketing counters operate at Malaysian efficiency - on one day, two ticketing counters were manned, but at one the man had closed the counter and was talking to his friend on the phone.
At the rear of the station is a more pleasant aspect of Malaysia - a food centre. Hawkers set up their pushcart stalls by the uneven roadside - satay, Ramlee burgers (with proper Ramlee burger-wrapping paper too), Otah, and even a hookah store (those Middle Eastern receptacles with pipes through which multiple people can smoke
***
"Any organisation which boasts one Statement of Purpose. one Vision, five Values, six Goals, seven Strategic Priorities and eight Key Performance Indicators without anyclear correlation between them is producing a recipe for total confusion and exasperation." (Francis Wheen, 2004:p.56, quoted by Singabloodypore)
Management bullshit must die!
***
Dilbert
Dilbert's Mom: Your cousin Lauren just got her degree in English. Can you give her some career advice?
Dilbert: Would you enjoy scratching out a meager living in a frustrating work environment?
Lauren: I've never thought about it.
Dilbert: Obviously.
Is Dilbert describing the job prospects for English degree holders? Or those at this company?
***
Unemployment-Related Benefits Systems in Singapore
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Singapore does not implement any unemployment benefits system dedicated to
helping the unemployed. It is because the government considers the best way to
assist individuals who are retrenched or unemployed is to help them seek re-
employment instead of handing out financial support such as unemployment
benefits.
2. The unemployed can get financial assistance from some public assistance
schemes to alleviate their immediate financial hardship such as: Public Assistance
Scheme, Interim (Short Term) Financial Assistance, Rent and Utilities Assistance
Scheme and Medifund. Also, there are some other financial assistance schemes
rendered by non-government agencies. However, all these schemes aim to
provide assistance to those who are “less fortunate” and are not confined to the
unemployed.
3. As the major source of cash relief, the Public Assistance Scheme does not
guarantee adequate assistance to the unemployed. The level of benefits is 41%
lower than the lowest 20% of household expenditure required for subsistence and
the scheme is administered strictly and only half of the numbers of application
are approved.
4. For the unemployed, the assistance provided by the government departments or
non-government agencies mainly in the form of job training, course fee
subsidization, counseling and job data bank services
Also of interest,
Coping with Retrenchment, from the Horse's Mouth.
***
Steven Lim strikes again
I witnessed the most shocking thing that ever happened in every day life to me, for a long long time.
I was walking at the underpass between Orchard MRT and CK Tang (you know the one with the blind accordian player, you know him!) and when I came across what I thought was the most attention grabbing marketing gimmick in a very long time. There was a girl standing in the middle of the path with A4 print outs on her back and on her forehead which had "
The girl was using a newspapers to cover her face too. Wow, I thought to myself. This "Steven Lim" guy has a completely new "out of the box" method, perhaps "artsy-fartsy" approach to getting his website known! I mean, EVERY SINGLE PERSON was literally stopping dead in their tracks to look from either direction!
Excited, I quickly called my friend Elgin that I was supposed to meet at Far East Plaza to come along to have a look. Before Elgin arrived, I found a tall guy in his late 20s wearing a black sleeveless tight t-shirt hanging around the side of the underpass, and I presumed him to be the "Marketing minded Steven Lim". I told him that I was impressed by the idea and asked him how he got it. He told me proudly that he thought about it himself. However, I couldn't help but keep looking at the girl but feel that something wasn't right. I also noticed that the girl had two girls on either side of her who seemed to be encouraging her in a "don't worry, we're here for you" kind of way.
"Who is that girl? Did you employ her? She's very brave! Where did you get her from?"
Steven replied by saying that it was his girlfriend. The horror hit me when when her friends came up to me and told me and Elgin that she was doing it completely against her will. Steven has asked her to do it with funny sunglasses and when she refused, he got angry. Apparently she loved him so much that she didn't want him to be angry with her and so she'd rather bite the bullet and cover her weeping eyes with the newspaper the whole time.
And what did this 28 year old hunkalot Steven do? He stood by the side and soaked up the glory and attention that he got as a result of his 16 year old girlfriend's humiliation. Angered, Elgin and I questioned him about his "business practices" and his only defence were lines like "I'm paying her $5 an hour" and "Of course I got unhappy when she didn't want to do it for me, it's only natural"! The whole time his poor girlfriend stood crying next to us, and her friends started looking to us for reason and support.
Elgin and I went on to give him a half an hour lecture on how NOT to treat his girlfriend and suggested other ideas to market himself without having to resort to emotional blackmail. His final response was "Thanks for the advice, but please visit my website. It's really good. Ask your friends to visit it as well!"
I felt so bad that ANY girl had to live with loving such a person that I ended up giving her a $300 watch loupe that I just happened to have on me. I just felt so sorry for her, and even more than such guys existed.
During the half hour lecture, he also asked me to support him on Singaporean Idol, let other people know about his website and how interesting all the new stuff is, and how he thinks he'll succeed in life by doing things like that.
God Bless his girlfriend, and all who stood with her.
http://pachome1.pacific.net.sg/~freestyle1279/sl.jpg
PS: I've attached a photo that I took of the "ad campaign" before I found out the truth. I'd like to hear your views, but please let me know if you're going to do anything drastic or public with this.
... dunno wat the girl sees in him!
Ah, he's going after 16 year olds again.
***
Via a reverse search referral lookup:
"Anyway, if you really wanna know and if u allow for my superficial opinion, i think miss singapore is simply and horrendously ugly!!What kind of scary face is that?? So obviously, beauty wasnt a criterion in the Miss Singapore World 2004 paegant. What i like about such international contests though is the fact that beautiful women from all cultures, nationalities around the world take part. Then u realise how ugly singapore women really are!! I personally feel the prettiest singaporean ladies are of malay ethnicity but its a pity many who are willing to take part usually dont get chosen to represent singapore. Usually some bimbo nus undergraduate who looks like she has piles of makeup on her gets picked and of course she fails to make a favourable impression in the international arena so maybe should just stick to staying in the library!! "
I got another search for "mama murtad" so I went to explore a bit, and have finally found out what Murtads are, which was really hard since few of the pages you get when searching for it tell you what murtads are, or at least not in English:
Murtads from Malaysia
Providing support and relevant information for Ex-Muslims who are prejudiced and discriminated
Welcome to Murtads from Malaysia!
This site is about and dedicated to:
- people who are living in Malaysia and are forced to be Muslims when they don't want to be Muslims;
- people who are from Malaysia that were forced to be Muslims when they were in Malaysia;
- people who are no longer living in Malaysia but still have problems as a result of not being a Muslim and
- any person that has abandoned the Islamic faith and lifestyle that is related to Malaysia somehow!
The stories of the murtads are sad indeed.
Interestingly enough, there's an Ex-Muslim meetup group in Kuala Lumpur with 12 members. If they ever meet, the police can raid the meetup and imprison them. Lucky they're not in Kelantan or Terengganu, or they would get the death penalty, albeit a suspended one "because of non-co-operation of the Police- and Prison Departments which are Federal departments".
***
Singapore Ink on the drivel that they show on Channel 8:
"The situation with local drama productions is in some ways worse than that with variety shows. We are past what my friend astutely calls the “Dark Ages” of internecine competition when MediaCorp simply packed its timeslots with popular Hongkong or Taiwanese dramas, effectively giving up the local drama game in favour of capturing the audiences. Even today, as local drama production has improved, MediaCorp’s philosophy has clearly changed in favour of longer soap opera-style dramas, as well as an unrelenting bias towards low-budget family dramas. The other day I finished watching the excellent 1999 Japanese drama Koi no Kiseki, & I was reminded that really “good” evil characters have been MIA from local dramas for years now. I don’t just mean people who cackle at the hero/heroine celebrating their achievements at breaking up families or swindling people of money. I also mean psychologically complex characters who are integral parts of the story, not one-dimensional walk-on baddies like snatch thieves or big cheats e.g. Liu Haisheng in 喜临门 who are just there to prop up the good guys.
Besides really “good” evil characters, MediaCorp also no longer does vaguely-Tang dynasty period dramas*, ghost dramas, horror/mystery dramas, fantasy dramas, wild comedies, great tragedies, or anything that strays too much from the big-families-plus-three/four-sided-relationships formula. Events like the Star Awards are a joke when MediaCorp produces 6 dramas a year & 5 come up for “Best Drama.” The company has many good actors & actresses, people who cut their chops on meatier & varied roles in the past, but these days they seem to be more celebrities because they appear as such (e.g. charity shows, tour programmes) & not because they actually impressed with recent acting. MediaCorp has no problem justifying this - “but we’re just catering to our audiences!” - just as in the “Dark Ages,” but I think it’s clear that it’s a loss to those audiences as well. You almost want to see something campy, like many of their mid-90s telemovies, rather than more of the play-it-safe kind. (Even something like the engaging, if not-so-original Six Weeks now showing on Channel i, for instance.) It is possible that this trend will take us to a pseudo-Indian or Filipino environment where people are famous because they are famous, less because they are talented or they had memorable roles. I don’t know how most Singaporeans feel about this, but I think this is the wrong way to go."
Meanwhile, in a comments box there is more hilarious casino scaremongering:
"I believe that these Casinos are going to bring nothing but trouble. Teenagers nowadays already have a habit of hanging around shopping centres at night, flirting with girls who behave like prostitutes. I cannot believe what will happen when these Casinos are built- teenagers will start Gambling and there is going to be more room for illegal activities like Smokoing and Secret Socities to have meetings. Worst of all will be the Potential Terror Threat on these Casinos.. They’ll be attracting Terrorrists, and not tourists! Please Think of your children’s sefety! Do you know how many robberies and murders have taken place in Casinos Overseas? Robbers will lose ineterest in banks- the Casinos are going to fetch much more! I Hope that the government will prevent this big mistake from being made. It is so Straight-forward and obvious that these Casinos will bring more trouble that trade!" (Emphasis mine, errors in original)
I'm sure the terrorists will want to bomb the casinos, right after they destroy the den of sin that is Asia-Pacific Breweries.
***
Couple arraigned in child sacrifice case; lawyers argue no harm intended - "Attorneys for a Farmington woman and her boyfriend, charged with entering St. Mary’s Church to sacrifice her children, argued Friday they never meant to do anyone harm."
Party Advice: Avoid Bare Copier Sitting - "British workers have been told: Have a merry Christmas - but skip the mistletoe, don't dance on the desks and definitely don't perch bare-bottomed on the photocopier. Such are the horrors of the modern British office party highlighted Friday in a welter of advice which, to some minds, would kill the fun."
Slain man's remains found in storage freezer - "A woman killed her husband, stuffed his body into a freezer, then shipped it to a Somerville storage facility, where it stayed for years until police found the remains yesterday, authorities said."
Man wearing bra, thong flashes girls - "Police are looking for a flasher with a flair for feminine fashion. Authorities say two young girls were walking to a coffee shop Friday when they were flashed by a man wearing a dark bathrobe. However, the man wasn't completely naked. He was wearing women's lingerie - namely, a bra and a thong."
Big league - "The average Australian woman is a size 16 and weighs 8kg heavier than her American counterpart, according to authoritive new international research. Australian men are also 3kg heavier than American males, the joint study by the University of Adelaide and US researchers shows."
Linguist Deciphers Uses of Word 'Dude' - "A linguist from the University of Pittsburgh has published a scholarly paper deconstructing and deciphering the word "dude," contending it is much more than a catchall for lazy, inarticulate surfers, skaters, slackers and teenagers... the word derives its power from something he calls cool solidarity — an effortless kinship that's not too intimate. Cool solidarity is especially important to young men who are under social pressure to be close with other young men, but not enough to be suspected as gay."
Bad Science product of the year - "The winner was Space Tomato Number One, part of the Chinese government's "space breeding" project, where radiation in space is used to create comic book mutations and giant space plants, including tomatoes weighing almost a kilogram. It was never made entirely clear why the mutations would be beneficial, or why you needed to be in space to get irradiated. The Chinese news agency Xinhua stated that, "in China the radiation effect is always positive, leading to bigger and better vegetables that will revolutionise agriculture.""
Post ID: 110326956192083498
Friday, December 17, 2004
"I'm astounded by people who want to know the universe when it's hard enough to find your way about Chinatown." - Woody Allen
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - I Know That My Redeemer Liveth (soprano, air)
I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see god.
For now is christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep.
***
et makes a case for extreme epistemological agnosticism, and urges us to commit to this stance, which inevitably leads towards epistemological nihilism and the impossibility of discourse:
et: A conviction that one is atheist, incidentally, is merely a faith that God does not exist. How sure are we that a God exists, or for the matter, that it/he/she does not exist, or that whether it exists or not, it is apathetic to the evolving human condition?
Nietzsche's views were, at least in my opinion, more compatible with agnosticism as they were with atheism. The barrier which blocks us from this truth in religion is most analogous to what it is like in quantum mechanics.
To understand the motion in time and space of a given particle, we must be able to observe it. A particle exists by rules collectively described as a wave function. If we observe it, quantum mechanics dictates that this wave function changes (or collapses). But why? For instance, if we examine how a particle moves using light, the energy photons emitted would change the state of the particle, and hence completely alter its state from what it would have been if we did not. Werner Heisenberg concluded that due to the nature of subatomic particles (and observation as it is inherently), we cannot tell for sure exactly where a wave or particle will exist in time and space, but we can, as with particles. This is why, as we learn in chemistry today, that orbitals are regions of density in space which correspond to the probability of finding an electron in it... It's certainly interesting and disappointing that all of quantum mechanics since Max Planck's excellent seminal work has come down to one thing – that inherently, it is impossible to know the true workings of particles by logic. Physics, then, has failed to live up to its name at the soul.
Yet it boils down to one thing – at this time and age, the truth is unknowable, and it is unmeasurable. It is not that we will never know, I am not qualified to make absolute statements like that, and indeed many who have done so in the past have been proven to be wrong.
By doing a measure in a certain way, we can come to different conclusions, because inherently we affect what would truth would theoretically be. And it suits our conclusions, or if it doesn't, we change our beliefs. Sometimes we do measurements deliberately to suit our conclusions, sometimes we do it frankly and with a neutral point of view.
The bigger question is – do we think that we could examine the truths of religion by five senses and logic? If we can, then why, logically, is it impossible for a God to exist; and why is it impossible for a God to not exist?
Assuming that you are right that Christianity is a flawed, fictional belief, why are all the other theistic beliefs in the world inherently wrong, for you to come to the big conclusion that God (or Gods) cannot exist? There is one, all-encompassing truth, but will we ever reach that truth?... But the truth remains to be found.
webmaster: I have a lack of belief in UFOs, Sasquatch, Fairies, the Loc Ness Monster, and a host of other nonsense. I lack belief in them because there is no verifiable evidence that these things exist.
For all your lofty sounding sentences, it is the responsiblity of those making a fantastic claim to prove that claim. You must prove your god. The unbeliever is not obligated to prove his lack of faith.
The whole idea of proving that UFOs don't exist is silly. If I had to disprove every single thing that someone in the world believes in, then I might as well go ahead and believe in every manmade fantasy out there.
Me: I believe in invisible, immaterial, undetectable winged pink bunnies orbiting the Planet Saturn because there is no way to disprove their existence!
et: It's unfair to say that. You reject God on the basis of there being no evidence of it/her/his existence. But, logically, wouldn't it work the other way? By your logic, one could readily accept God – or the tooth fairy – on the basis of there being no evidence that it does not exist. Your beliefs are as absurd as you would perceive a belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa might be.
"The unbeliever does not have to prove his lack of faith." And why not? A convenient excuse? Some believers don't want to prove their faith either, and that is because he doesn't want the absolute truth to contradict what they think to be truth. Having being so enlightened, surely you're not going to settle for convenient excuses? Why have the belief that God cannot possibly exist if you're not going to justify it? You don't have to prove your beliefs to me, but you have to prove it to yourself.
Don't set standards for people until you set those same standards for yourself. Truth is all-encompassing. This is the basis for the existence of religion and religious beliefs. This is also the basis for the (yours, in particular) belief that no theistic religion is absolutely correct.
You may have talked about attaining truth, but it is my humble opinion – and maybe I am absolutely wrong – that you have neither seeked opinion nor obtained it.
Me: I think it's safe to say that most of us here have weighed the evidence for gods and found it to come up short.
It is impossible, or very hard at the very least, to prove a negative. If you accept the existence of all sorts of entities because there is no evidence that they do not exist... then good luck to you. There is a monster under your bed which disappears whenever you look under it, but comes out to ravish you each night in your sleep. The whole world is full of similarly mysterious objects and entities for which there is no evidence for their non-existence. Absence of proof might not be proof of absence, but it strongly points towards that conclusion.
The unbeliever does not have to prove his lack of faith, just as we do not have to prove our lack of faith in invisible blah blah bunnies (see above comment), but most of us are doubly certain the lack of faith is justified, since we have considered the various evidence and arguments.
ryan: et, unless you can make it clear to us what you mean by "god", then any assertion that he exists has no meaning. An assertion that god exists has neither meaning nor value. I for one have not the foggiest notion what you mean when you say "god". Do you? Who or what is god? What, if anything, are his demands on us? What, if anything, are the penalties for failing to meet his demands? Can you answer any of this, and if you cannot, can you expect to be able to answer any of this in the future? If you arrive at an answer, how can it be verified?
et, the word "god" is gibberish. The word god has no more meaning than the word Bobba-chango, or the word bruhmapunga. Let's define our terms and then proceed.
et: I define God or Gods to be creators. After all, if one does not talk about creators, how are we able to define our existence? This is the central argument behind theism. Einstein, too, famously talked of God, defining it as Spinoza's God, Spinoza being one of the great rationalists of the 19th century.
Agnostics have arguably justifiable proof, instead of just excuses. A person looking for excuses to dodge his understanding and beliefs better is not looking for truth.
For me, quantum physics is the clearest example of the limitations of current human knowledge, but as in typical scientific spirit, I also believe we will overcome that limitation one day. I might be wrong, and if you have a better example (or rebuttal), I would be quite happy to hear it. But we have not found the truth (underlying all of quantum physics, if not all of religion) today.
Agagooga – you explicitly say it is impossible to prove a negative. People have proven negatives with mathematics, but with what we call truth? I, too, feel that nobody to this date has ever done so with a rational argument.
But, having had no proof that solidifies your position as an atheist, wouldn't you better qualify as an agnostic?... People intolerant to new ideas are not simply limited to theists. Also in this group includes atheists, and, quite sadly, those who see themselves as agnostics.
The most important thing QP can teach to anybody in search of the truth: question your beliefs. Even if you're an agnostic and believe that the truth is fundamentally unknown – what if it can be known? This agnostic spirit has driven many quantum physicists to search for that truth; the texts dictate that this cannot be done, but they go ahead and do it anyway.
Me: If one talks about creators, who created the creators? And if no one created the creators, why did the universe need to be created? That is the central point debunking the cosmological argument.
How do you differentiate between "excuses" and "justifiable proof"? I think it's too flippant to claim atheists have the former, but agnostics the latter. I understand the part about quantum physics, but why do you say we have not found the truth about religions? Do you have excuses or justifiable proof? By your criteria, it would seem everyone is intolerant to new ideas. Otherwise, I would like you to qualify and substantiate your sweeping statement. Hell, by definition, all ex-Christians have questioned their beliefs.
I said it is "very hard at the very least" to prove a negative. Some negatives can be proven, but many are essentially impossible to prove, like my undetectable bunnies postulate. Just because you can't justify the non-existence of undetectable bunnies does not mean you think they might exist, or the world would be full of scary yet undetectable entities.
Jim Arvo: I do not believe in god(s) because I have seen no credible evidence for them/it/her/him/whatever. Let's start with that. Now, according to you, it would also be logical to turn that around and say that one could just as well chose to *believe* when there is no evidence *against* a given proposition... [Regarding] the logic of believing based on lack of counter-evidence, here is why that doesn't work. Belief and non-belief are not symmetrical. If you believe nothing, you are at least free of contradictions. If you believe everything, you are riddled with contradictions. If you accept the existence of your god because you have seen no credible counter-evidence, then I presume you also accept the existence of Mithra, Osiris, Isis, Zeus, elves, leprachauns, poltergeists, and little green men living in the core of Pluto. You see, the reason for not accepting things simply because they are not explicitly DIS-proven, is that doing otherwise immediately leads to a complete mess. You would be reduced to a credulous simpleton who accepts the word of Bugs Bunny as readily as that of a competent critically-thinking fellow human. If you nevertheless feel deep down that that is the way toward truth, then I say "good luck" and I bid you adieu.
et: I am pushing an agnostic view... I am not pushing the agenda for either a theistic or atheistic view, because – let me say this clearly if I have not already done so – I do not find myself qualified enough to make a definite statement about the existence or non-existence of a creator. This is what being agnostic is about... being atheists indicates to me that you have definite beliefs, and definite statements of truth; with your arguments, I can challenge my beliefs.
As for what I define God as, it is merely a reference point to talk about a creator in a more convenient denomination; the major religions are monotheistic. This is why Wikipedia groups arguments for theist and atheist articles under Arguments for ____ of God. Obviously, I have read about Agagooga's infinite creators argument, but how are we going to talk about it in simple terms?
I was quite taken aback about what others said about not having an obligation to prove a disbelief. And I'll repeat this again – a disbelief is also a belief. If one is obliged to prove a belief, one is also certainly obliged to prove a disbelief.
Albert Einstein did not believe in quantum physics to his dying day. Yet he could have simply debunked it as rubbish and use that explanation. But Einstein (and other physicists) took the responsibility to publish a paper that turned out to be quantum physics' biggest challenge ever. Even if Einstein was in fact "proven wrong" by experiments over the years, he needn't have bothered. Einstein had very little obligation to prove his disbelief. After all, he is widely regarded to be the 20th century's most prominent, most intelligent physicist, or person, for that matter. But what about lesser people like us?
Agagooga has said on this forum that he has no evidence (evidence as we know it) to back up his atheist faith. Having said that it is "near impossible" to do so could be very well equated to him having a belief that he cannot find evidence of the non-existence of God. Wouldn't that make him an agnostic?
I believe that Agagooga is a rationalist – not all rationalists need be atheists. In fact, a majority of rationalists are agnostics. But if Agagooga is not a rationalist – his support for atheism being bolstered by just faith (which many here have debunked as nonsense), then I will have nothing else to say on this matter. In writing this, I assume most of us here are rationalists.
The difference between an rationalist agnostic and a rationalist atheist is that the atheist has, without any rational backing claims (ironically), come to the conclusion that there is no God. Such a conclusion would be absolutely intolerable to a genuine rationalist, since it has no rational backing. Maybe some here find this to be a perfectly reasonable conclusion; as for me, I think it is spurious.
As for Agagooga's comment about questioning one's beliefs, it is not sufficient to challenge it once (as he did while being disillusioned by his faith), or even in fact a million times. Because the probability of obtaining the truth is so incredibly small, how can we hope to be right after even a billion tries, and for that matter, if we do, how do we know if we are correct? Even if Agagooga has indeed found the truth, however improbable statistically it may be, how about millions of atheists who claim the same? This is, of course, in terms of statistics; maybe they all have found the truth, but I find this incredibly hard to believe.
My answer to this is to continuously challenge our current beliefs; if it does not hold true, renew and find new ones. Challenge it until the point where you are convinced – that is, you have read every single challenge to that belief and debunked all of them – that you are undisputedly correct. This is one of the central teachings, if there should be any, of the agnostic spirit. Many of Bertrand Russell's – one of the best known agnostics – articles encourage the reader, agnostic or otherwise, to challenge his beliefs regularly. That last word should not be forgotten.
The process of challenging one's beliefs, to me, is such a long and tedious one, that we might as well say it is lifelong.I don't know how much older Agagooga is compared to me; I think it is not much, but the fact that he has found "truth" means that he is going to stop challenging his beliefs, and maybe it is a bit of a long shot to say this, but this is quite simply another way to say "I have become narrow-minded". And at such a young age too.
I find that perhaps my idea of "truth" is held with much higher standards that most here. Maybe the truth is much easier to find than I have put it here; I believe this is the main disagreement between us.
ficino: et, to express myself more precisely in response to your message, what's wrong with the atheist saying "as far as I know, there is no god"? That's usually the degree of epistemic certainty we get when, to use your words, we "come to the conclusion" that some matter of fact, as opposed to some analytic and/or tautological proposition, is not the case. Are you such a rigorous skeptic that you suspend judgment in every case where you're tempted to think maybe some purported entity doesn't exist? It would be neat to hear from you how you justify your own conclusions that some X or some Y does not exist, or if you never come to such conclusions, how you function in practical situations. I don't mean cases like "there's no cup on the counter," where we have used the senses to grasp universals "cup" "counter" etc. and then use the senses again to look at the counter. I mean cases like "there are no hippogriffs" when we deny that there are any members of the class "hippogriff". Maybe denial that there is a King of France would be a sure one, too.
et: I believe the beef of what you have said is that we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists. Yet it is this faith that many others on this forum page, or on the whole of this site for that matter, claim not to have, as in Agagooga's original testimonial.
The fact that we support an idea without much or any (difficult to prove a disbelief, as Agagooga said) logical evidence means that it is only held together by faith. Yet this faith is rubbished! If, as I have said earlier, his atheism is held together by faith, I will have nothing more to say on the matter. Certainly Agagooga doesn't say if logic alone will find the truth, but from what I understand from the tone of his replies and his testimony, he has very little regard for faith. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I find that this religion riddle is the most difficult question in the world to answer. In other issues, we know where to start, how to approach, and even what to normally expect. Not religion. Maybe some will hastily answer that God question, but if you do not know the answer, why should you rush into one? Why effectively lie to yourself?... as far as religion goes, I want to be as consistent to those basic agnostic principles of flexibility so that, should I ever get to know the truth, I will recognise, respect and embrace it, no matter how much it contradicts what I consider true, no matter how much it contradicts my beliefs.
Some will point out that it is easier said than done. But nobody has ever said with complete certainty that acquiring the truth was easy.
Jim Arvo: et: "I believe the beef of what you have said is that we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists. Yet it is this faith that many others on this forum page, or on the whole of this site for that matter, claim not to have, as in Agagooga's original testimonial."
That word "faith" gets thrown around a lot, both as a pejorative and as an ideal. Frankly, I don't think it's very well defined. Some people use it in the sense of "confidence", others in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence (or even despite disconfirming evidence). So, let's look at the statement "It takes faith to be an atheist", which is little more than a cliché that gets tossed out a lot. What is that supposed to mean? That atheism (lacking belief in the unsupported claims of theists) somehow requires an absolute dogmatic *belief* in something? Geeeeez am I tired of arguing against that old red herring. Since theists (apparently) have no evidence to speak of, they try to heard everyone else into their leaky boat, pinning the word "faith" (as a pejorative!) on everybody. It's nonsense. As a general rule I do not accept things without *some* positive evidence; that's not faith, no matter how you define faith. Theists are welcome to their leaky boat. I prefer to stay ashore.
et: "The fact that we support an idea without much or any (difficult to prove a disbelief, as Agagooga said) logical evidence means that it is only held together by faith."
Say what!? I conduct my life under the assumption that there are no gods, because I have yet to see a scrap of credible evidence that there are any gods. Is that "faith"? No, it is not. Show me some evidence, and I am prepared to change my thinking. But until then, I will make decisions based on what seems to be the most rational and parsimonious interpretation I can give to the world. If my car goes off a cliff and I find myself trapped in a car that is sinking in water, I will very likely spend my time trying to extricate myself, and not praying to a god who I have no reason to believe exists. Is that faith? No, it's pragmatism. It's giving the most plausible interpretation to the world that one can produce, based on the evidence currently available. (I'm curious to see what violence you can do to the word "faith" so that you can pin it on me.)
et: "Yet this faith is rubbished! If, as I have said earlier, his atheism is held together by faith, I will have nothing more to say on the matter."
Funny... The word rubbish came to my mind as well, but not with regard to Agagooga...
et: "I find that this religion riddle is the most difficult question in the world to answer. In other issues, we know where to start, how to approach, and even what to normally expect. Not religion. Maybe some will hastily answer that God question, but if you do not know the answer, why should you rush into one? Why effectively lie to yourself?"
Welcome back to the land of the rational. I can't complain about anything in that last paragraph.
et "...as far as religion goes, I want to be as consistent to those basic agnostic principles of flexibility so that, should I ever get to know the truth, I will recognise, respect and embrace it, no matter how much it contradicts what I consider true, no matter how much it contradicts my beliefs."
Aside from some little quibbles about the meaning of the word "agnostic", I'm prepared to give you a round of applause for that one. What you appear to be advocating is pure and simple open-mindedness. Amen (so to peak). When Huxley originally coined the term "agnostic", his motivation was to give a label to the practice of confining one's statements to the realm of what is (in principle) knowable. In his view (and mine) there is little value in rattling on and on about things you know nothing about, nor have any hope of ever knowing about. (His actual definitions got a bit confused, but that's another story.) I think you are using the word in a spirit close to what Huxley was originally thinking. So, again, I have no quarrel with that.
I'll close with a few simple questions to you, et: What is the status of Zeus in you mind? Is he a real god? An imaginary god? Is your opinion based on faith?
ficino: Dear et, I haven't worked out all the questions about what an atheist commits him/herself to, as opposed to what an agnostic commits self to, and I'm not sure I'm up to giving that task my full-blown effort, at least, right now. Questions about fine points of epistemic certainty make my head swim pretty easily. But I'm up for trying a little harder.
Either I misspoke in my last two postings or you mistook my meaning. I did not claim, as you suggest in your summary ("the beef of what you said"), that "we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists." If what I said entails that claim as a consequence, I'd profit from being shown that it does. I was trying to endorse a distinction between "belief" and "faith." You yourself used the verb "believe" but don't claim "faith," right?
You also haven't answered my question about how you go about concluding that some class of entity doesn't exist. Jim Arvo rephrased this same question.
An agnostic says something like this, right?: I believe that in principle, a human being cannot know whether an entity exists that has the properties ascribed to "god". The agnostic's state of belief is not an act of will, not the virtue "faith" spoken of by St. Paul. It's intellectual assent to a proposition; a judgment, if you will. This assent comes after reflection on and weighing of evidence taken from many quarters.
An atheist says: I don't believe the entity exists that has the properties ascribed to "god". This can be rewritten, I believe the entity etc. does not exist; because if "I don't believe" just means "I suspend judgment," then the atheist has collapsed into the agnostic.
So, does the atheist have grounds for his/her judgment? We've already talked about the degree of epistemic certainty involved in making a judgment "that not P" based on lack of supporting evidence for P. You haven't replied to my questions about hippogriffs and the King of France, though. Do we have grounds for making the judgments that those entities don't exist? I'd say, for starters, that if the entity's definition entails contradiction/s, we can get serious about cutting it out. Can we agree that square triangles don't exist, or that maybe mammals with no hearts nor lungs don't exist? What about God, then? Many mutually contradictory things are said of the God of the Bible. Maybe we can have more confidence about atheism toward that god than we can about atheism toward some supreme creative force out there somewhere, of which very few specific properties are predicated.
In the end I also feel dishonest saying I'm an agnostic when I live as though there is no god. I can't see the point of saying I'm agnostic, somehow.
Me: et: Following your position would lead us into epistemological and philosophical nihilism. Can we know anything? If not, should we even be having debates on anything?
"A disbelief is also a belief" - What about a lack of belief? Anyhow, I think we have adequately punctured all evidence for the existence of gods, so we are right to say that we believe gods don't exist. Unless the gods in question were apathetic and undetectable. In which case I could say you could not prove that you were not living in the Matrix, therefore we should give up all hope for rational discussion and lapse into despondency and despair. Or, if you prefer, I would not be able to prove that the world would not spontaneously vanish in the next second. For all intents and purposes, a positive assertion about existence needs to be proven, while a negative assertion does not, since non-existence is the status quo.
You say we need to continuously challenge our current beliefs. I agree, but not necessarily to the point of reading "every single challenge to that belief" and debunking "all of them". Take religion, for example. Since there are tens of thousands of religions (at least) in existence, or that have ever existed, should we take the time to debunk them all? Surely not, for that would take at least a dozen lifetimes, what with the voluminous amount of disingenuous apologist arguments formulated over the centuries.
Remaining open-minded is not the same as being non-commital - if one applies your logic, one must be agnostic about EVERYTHING, since at any point new information might come up to debunk your previously held beliefs. One would not be able to say that, say, Lee Kuan Yew is 80 years old, for at any point evidence of a wrongly entered date of birth might arise. Can we then assert even such a seemingly obvious fact safely? Should we live in a world of grave uncertainty and epistemological nihilism? I think not.
et: if nothing can be known for certain, how do *you* know that there's "one, all-encompassing truth"? And how do you know "we have not found the truth (underlying all of quantum physics, if not all of religion) today"?
We will never have total certainty about anything, for even the laws of logic might one day we warped and 1 + 1 = 3. Does that mean we should be agnostic about everything? Perhaps we should be agnostic
You tease a valid point about uncertainty so far that it becomes facetious. Following your logic to its ultimate conclusion, nought is left but chaos and uncertainty. Reductio ad absurdum.
***
The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
--- Henry Louis Mencken
***
Of all the Livejournal memes/chains that I've seen, this is the most retarded, yet hilarious:
If there is someone on your friends list you would like to take, strip naked, tie them to a bed post, eat them until they scream, then fuck them until both of you are sensless and unable to fuck anymore, then wait about 5 minutes, and do it all over again, then post this exact sentence in YOUR journal.
>_>
<_<
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - I Know That My Redeemer Liveth (soprano, air)
I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see god.
For now is christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep.
***
et makes a case for extreme epistemological agnosticism, and urges us to commit to this stance, which inevitably leads towards epistemological nihilism and the impossibility of discourse:
et: A conviction that one is atheist, incidentally, is merely a faith that God does not exist. How sure are we that a God exists, or for the matter, that it/he/she does not exist, or that whether it exists or not, it is apathetic to the evolving human condition?
Nietzsche's views were, at least in my opinion, more compatible with agnosticism as they were with atheism. The barrier which blocks us from this truth in religion is most analogous to what it is like in quantum mechanics.
To understand the motion in time and space of a given particle, we must be able to observe it. A particle exists by rules collectively described as a wave function. If we observe it, quantum mechanics dictates that this wave function changes (or collapses). But why? For instance, if we examine how a particle moves using light, the energy photons emitted would change the state of the particle, and hence completely alter its state from what it would have been if we did not. Werner Heisenberg concluded that due to the nature of subatomic particles (and observation as it is inherently), we cannot tell for sure exactly where a wave or particle will exist in time and space, but we can, as with particles. This is why, as we learn in chemistry today, that orbitals are regions of density in space which correspond to the probability of finding an electron in it... It's certainly interesting and disappointing that all of quantum mechanics since Max Planck's excellent seminal work has come down to one thing – that inherently, it is impossible to know the true workings of particles by logic. Physics, then, has failed to live up to its name at the soul.
Yet it boils down to one thing – at this time and age, the truth is unknowable, and it is unmeasurable. It is not that we will never know, I am not qualified to make absolute statements like that, and indeed many who have done so in the past have been proven to be wrong.
By doing a measure in a certain way, we can come to different conclusions, because inherently we affect what would truth would theoretically be. And it suits our conclusions, or if it doesn't, we change our beliefs. Sometimes we do measurements deliberately to suit our conclusions, sometimes we do it frankly and with a neutral point of view.
The bigger question is – do we think that we could examine the truths of religion by five senses and logic? If we can, then why, logically, is it impossible for a God to exist; and why is it impossible for a God to not exist?
Assuming that you are right that Christianity is a flawed, fictional belief, why are all the other theistic beliefs in the world inherently wrong, for you to come to the big conclusion that God (or Gods) cannot exist? There is one, all-encompassing truth, but will we ever reach that truth?... But the truth remains to be found.
webmaster: I have a lack of belief in UFOs, Sasquatch, Fairies, the Loc Ness Monster, and a host of other nonsense. I lack belief in them because there is no verifiable evidence that these things exist.
For all your lofty sounding sentences, it is the responsiblity of those making a fantastic claim to prove that claim. You must prove your god. The unbeliever is not obligated to prove his lack of faith.
The whole idea of proving that UFOs don't exist is silly. If I had to disprove every single thing that someone in the world believes in, then I might as well go ahead and believe in every manmade fantasy out there.
Me: I believe in invisible, immaterial, undetectable winged pink bunnies orbiting the Planet Saturn because there is no way to disprove their existence!
et: It's unfair to say that. You reject God on the basis of there being no evidence of it/her/his existence. But, logically, wouldn't it work the other way? By your logic, one could readily accept God – or the tooth fairy – on the basis of there being no evidence that it does not exist. Your beliefs are as absurd as you would perceive a belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa might be.
"The unbeliever does not have to prove his lack of faith." And why not? A convenient excuse? Some believers don't want to prove their faith either, and that is because he doesn't want the absolute truth to contradict what they think to be truth. Having being so enlightened, surely you're not going to settle for convenient excuses? Why have the belief that God cannot possibly exist if you're not going to justify it? You don't have to prove your beliefs to me, but you have to prove it to yourself.
Don't set standards for people until you set those same standards for yourself. Truth is all-encompassing. This is the basis for the existence of religion and religious beliefs. This is also the basis for the (yours, in particular) belief that no theistic religion is absolutely correct.
You may have talked about attaining truth, but it is my humble opinion – and maybe I am absolutely wrong – that you have neither seeked opinion nor obtained it.
Me: I think it's safe to say that most of us here have weighed the evidence for gods and found it to come up short.
It is impossible, or very hard at the very least, to prove a negative. If you accept the existence of all sorts of entities because there is no evidence that they do not exist... then good luck to you. There is a monster under your bed which disappears whenever you look under it, but comes out to ravish you each night in your sleep. The whole world is full of similarly mysterious objects and entities for which there is no evidence for their non-existence. Absence of proof might not be proof of absence, but it strongly points towards that conclusion.
The unbeliever does not have to prove his lack of faith, just as we do not have to prove our lack of faith in invisible blah blah bunnies (see above comment), but most of us are doubly certain the lack of faith is justified, since we have considered the various evidence and arguments.
ryan: et, unless you can make it clear to us what you mean by "god", then any assertion that he exists has no meaning. An assertion that god exists has neither meaning nor value. I for one have not the foggiest notion what you mean when you say "god". Do you? Who or what is god? What, if anything, are his demands on us? What, if anything, are the penalties for failing to meet his demands? Can you answer any of this, and if you cannot, can you expect to be able to answer any of this in the future? If you arrive at an answer, how can it be verified?
et, the word "god" is gibberish. The word god has no more meaning than the word Bobba-chango, or the word bruhmapunga. Let's define our terms and then proceed.
et: I define God or Gods to be creators. After all, if one does not talk about creators, how are we able to define our existence? This is the central argument behind theism. Einstein, too, famously talked of God, defining it as Spinoza's God, Spinoza being one of the great rationalists of the 19th century.
Agnostics have arguably justifiable proof, instead of just excuses. A person looking for excuses to dodge his understanding and beliefs better is not looking for truth.
For me, quantum physics is the clearest example of the limitations of current human knowledge, but as in typical scientific spirit, I also believe we will overcome that limitation one day. I might be wrong, and if you have a better example (or rebuttal), I would be quite happy to hear it. But we have not found the truth (underlying all of quantum physics, if not all of religion) today.
Agagooga – you explicitly say it is impossible to prove a negative. People have proven negatives with mathematics, but with what we call truth? I, too, feel that nobody to this date has ever done so with a rational argument.
But, having had no proof that solidifies your position as an atheist, wouldn't you better qualify as an agnostic?... People intolerant to new ideas are not simply limited to theists. Also in this group includes atheists, and, quite sadly, those who see themselves as agnostics.
The most important thing QP can teach to anybody in search of the truth: question your beliefs. Even if you're an agnostic and believe that the truth is fundamentally unknown – what if it can be known? This agnostic spirit has driven many quantum physicists to search for that truth; the texts dictate that this cannot be done, but they go ahead and do it anyway.
Me: If one talks about creators, who created the creators? And if no one created the creators, why did the universe need to be created? That is the central point debunking the cosmological argument.
How do you differentiate between "excuses" and "justifiable proof"? I think it's too flippant to claim atheists have the former, but agnostics the latter. I understand the part about quantum physics, but why do you say we have not found the truth about religions? Do you have excuses or justifiable proof? By your criteria, it would seem everyone is intolerant to new ideas. Otherwise, I would like you to qualify and substantiate your sweeping statement. Hell, by definition, all ex-Christians have questioned their beliefs.
I said it is "very hard at the very least" to prove a negative. Some negatives can be proven, but many are essentially impossible to prove, like my undetectable bunnies postulate. Just because you can't justify the non-existence of undetectable bunnies does not mean you think they might exist, or the world would be full of scary yet undetectable entities.
Jim Arvo: I do not believe in god(s) because I have seen no credible evidence for them/it/her/him/whatever. Let's start with that. Now, according to you, it would also be logical to turn that around and say that one could just as well chose to *believe* when there is no evidence *against* a given proposition... [Regarding] the logic of believing based on lack of counter-evidence, here is why that doesn't work. Belief and non-belief are not symmetrical. If you believe nothing, you are at least free of contradictions. If you believe everything, you are riddled with contradictions. If you accept the existence of your god because you have seen no credible counter-evidence, then I presume you also accept the existence of Mithra, Osiris, Isis, Zeus, elves, leprachauns, poltergeists, and little green men living in the core of Pluto. You see, the reason for not accepting things simply because they are not explicitly DIS-proven, is that doing otherwise immediately leads to a complete mess. You would be reduced to a credulous simpleton who accepts the word of Bugs Bunny as readily as that of a competent critically-thinking fellow human. If you nevertheless feel deep down that that is the way toward truth, then I say "good luck" and I bid you adieu.
et: I am pushing an agnostic view... I am not pushing the agenda for either a theistic or atheistic view, because – let me say this clearly if I have not already done so – I do not find myself qualified enough to make a definite statement about the existence or non-existence of a creator. This is what being agnostic is about... being atheists indicates to me that you have definite beliefs, and definite statements of truth; with your arguments, I can challenge my beliefs.
As for what I define God as, it is merely a reference point to talk about a creator in a more convenient denomination; the major religions are monotheistic. This is why Wikipedia groups arguments for theist and atheist articles under Arguments for ____ of God. Obviously, I have read about Agagooga's infinite creators argument, but how are we going to talk about it in simple terms?
I was quite taken aback about what others said about not having an obligation to prove a disbelief. And I'll repeat this again – a disbelief is also a belief. If one is obliged to prove a belief, one is also certainly obliged to prove a disbelief.
Albert Einstein did not believe in quantum physics to his dying day. Yet he could have simply debunked it as rubbish and use that explanation. But Einstein (and other physicists) took the responsibility to publish a paper that turned out to be quantum physics' biggest challenge ever. Even if Einstein was in fact "proven wrong" by experiments over the years, he needn't have bothered. Einstein had very little obligation to prove his disbelief. After all, he is widely regarded to be the 20th century's most prominent, most intelligent physicist, or person, for that matter. But what about lesser people like us?
Agagooga has said on this forum that he has no evidence (evidence as we know it) to back up his atheist faith. Having said that it is "near impossible" to do so could be very well equated to him having a belief that he cannot find evidence of the non-existence of God. Wouldn't that make him an agnostic?
I believe that Agagooga is a rationalist – not all rationalists need be atheists. In fact, a majority of rationalists are agnostics. But if Agagooga is not a rationalist – his support for atheism being bolstered by just faith (which many here have debunked as nonsense), then I will have nothing else to say on this matter. In writing this, I assume most of us here are rationalists.
The difference between an rationalist agnostic and a rationalist atheist is that the atheist has, without any rational backing claims (ironically), come to the conclusion that there is no God. Such a conclusion would be absolutely intolerable to a genuine rationalist, since it has no rational backing. Maybe some here find this to be a perfectly reasonable conclusion; as for me, I think it is spurious.
As for Agagooga's comment about questioning one's beliefs, it is not sufficient to challenge it once (as he did while being disillusioned by his faith), or even in fact a million times. Because the probability of obtaining the truth is so incredibly small, how can we hope to be right after even a billion tries, and for that matter, if we do, how do we know if we are correct? Even if Agagooga has indeed found the truth, however improbable statistically it may be, how about millions of atheists who claim the same? This is, of course, in terms of statistics; maybe they all have found the truth, but I find this incredibly hard to believe.
My answer to this is to continuously challenge our current beliefs; if it does not hold true, renew and find new ones. Challenge it until the point where you are convinced – that is, you have read every single challenge to that belief and debunked all of them – that you are undisputedly correct. This is one of the central teachings, if there should be any, of the agnostic spirit. Many of Bertrand Russell's – one of the best known agnostics – articles encourage the reader, agnostic or otherwise, to challenge his beliefs regularly. That last word should not be forgotten.
The process of challenging one's beliefs, to me, is such a long and tedious one, that we might as well say it is lifelong.I don't know how much older Agagooga is compared to me; I think it is not much, but the fact that he has found "truth" means that he is going to stop challenging his beliefs, and maybe it is a bit of a long shot to say this, but this is quite simply another way to say "I have become narrow-minded". And at such a young age too.
I find that perhaps my idea of "truth" is held with much higher standards that most here. Maybe the truth is much easier to find than I have put it here; I believe this is the main disagreement between us.
ficino: et, to express myself more precisely in response to your message, what's wrong with the atheist saying "as far as I know, there is no god"? That's usually the degree of epistemic certainty we get when, to use your words, we "come to the conclusion" that some matter of fact, as opposed to some analytic and/or tautological proposition, is not the case. Are you such a rigorous skeptic that you suspend judgment in every case where you're tempted to think maybe some purported entity doesn't exist? It would be neat to hear from you how you justify your own conclusions that some X or some Y does not exist, or if you never come to such conclusions, how you function in practical situations. I don't mean cases like "there's no cup on the counter," where we have used the senses to grasp universals "cup" "counter" etc. and then use the senses again to look at the counter. I mean cases like "there are no hippogriffs" when we deny that there are any members of the class "hippogriff". Maybe denial that there is a King of France would be a sure one, too.
et: I believe the beef of what you have said is that we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists. Yet it is this faith that many others on this forum page, or on the whole of this site for that matter, claim not to have, as in Agagooga's original testimonial.
The fact that we support an idea without much or any (difficult to prove a disbelief, as Agagooga said) logical evidence means that it is only held together by faith. Yet this faith is rubbished! If, as I have said earlier, his atheism is held together by faith, I will have nothing more to say on the matter. Certainly Agagooga doesn't say if logic alone will find the truth, but from what I understand from the tone of his replies and his testimony, he has very little regard for faith. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I find that this religion riddle is the most difficult question in the world to answer. In other issues, we know where to start, how to approach, and even what to normally expect. Not religion. Maybe some will hastily answer that God question, but if you do not know the answer, why should you rush into one? Why effectively lie to yourself?... as far as religion goes, I want to be as consistent to those basic agnostic principles of flexibility so that, should I ever get to know the truth, I will recognise, respect and embrace it, no matter how much it contradicts what I consider true, no matter how much it contradicts my beliefs.
Some will point out that it is easier said than done. But nobody has ever said with complete certainty that acquiring the truth was easy.
Jim Arvo: et: "I believe the beef of what you have said is that we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists. Yet it is this faith that many others on this forum page, or on the whole of this site for that matter, claim not to have, as in Agagooga's original testimonial."
That word "faith" gets thrown around a lot, both as a pejorative and as an ideal. Frankly, I don't think it's very well defined. Some people use it in the sense of "confidence", others in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence (or even despite disconfirming evidence). So, let's look at the statement "It takes faith to be an atheist", which is little more than a cliché that gets tossed out a lot. What is that supposed to mean? That atheism (lacking belief in the unsupported claims of theists) somehow requires an absolute dogmatic *belief* in something? Geeeeez am I tired of arguing against that old red herring. Since theists (apparently) have no evidence to speak of, they try to heard everyone else into their leaky boat, pinning the word "faith" (as a pejorative!) on everybody. It's nonsense. As a general rule I do not accept things without *some* positive evidence; that's not faith, no matter how you define faith. Theists are welcome to their leaky boat. I prefer to stay ashore.
et: "The fact that we support an idea without much or any (difficult to prove a disbelief, as Agagooga said) logical evidence means that it is only held together by faith."
Say what!? I conduct my life under the assumption that there are no gods, because I have yet to see a scrap of credible evidence that there are any gods. Is that "faith"? No, it is not. Show me some evidence, and I am prepared to change my thinking. But until then, I will make decisions based on what seems to be the most rational and parsimonious interpretation I can give to the world. If my car goes off a cliff and I find myself trapped in a car that is sinking in water, I will very likely spend my time trying to extricate myself, and not praying to a god who I have no reason to believe exists. Is that faith? No, it's pragmatism. It's giving the most plausible interpretation to the world that one can produce, based on the evidence currently available. (I'm curious to see what violence you can do to the word "faith" so that you can pin it on me.)
et: "Yet this faith is rubbished! If, as I have said earlier, his atheism is held together by faith, I will have nothing more to say on the matter."
Funny... The word rubbish came to my mind as well, but not with regard to Agagooga...
et: "I find that this religion riddle is the most difficult question in the world to answer. In other issues, we know where to start, how to approach, and even what to normally expect. Not religion. Maybe some will hastily answer that God question, but if you do not know the answer, why should you rush into one? Why effectively lie to yourself?"
Welcome back to the land of the rational. I can't complain about anything in that last paragraph.
et "...as far as religion goes, I want to be as consistent to those basic agnostic principles of flexibility so that, should I ever get to know the truth, I will recognise, respect and embrace it, no matter how much it contradicts what I consider true, no matter how much it contradicts my beliefs."
Aside from some little quibbles about the meaning of the word "agnostic", I'm prepared to give you a round of applause for that one. What you appear to be advocating is pure and simple open-mindedness. Amen (so to peak). When Huxley originally coined the term "agnostic", his motivation was to give a label to the practice of confining one's statements to the realm of what is (in principle) knowable. In his view (and mine) there is little value in rattling on and on about things you know nothing about, nor have any hope of ever knowing about. (His actual definitions got a bit confused, but that's another story.) I think you are using the word in a spirit close to what Huxley was originally thinking. So, again, I have no quarrel with that.
I'll close with a few simple questions to you, et: What is the status of Zeus in you mind? Is he a real god? An imaginary god? Is your opinion based on faith?
ficino: Dear et, I haven't worked out all the questions about what an atheist commits him/herself to, as opposed to what an agnostic commits self to, and I'm not sure I'm up to giving that task my full-blown effort, at least, right now. Questions about fine points of epistemic certainty make my head swim pretty easily. But I'm up for trying a little harder.
Either I misspoke in my last two postings or you mistook my meaning. I did not claim, as you suggest in your summary ("the beef of what you said"), that "we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists." If what I said entails that claim as a consequence, I'd profit from being shown that it does. I was trying to endorse a distinction between "belief" and "faith." You yourself used the verb "believe" but don't claim "faith," right?
You also haven't answered my question about how you go about concluding that some class of entity doesn't exist. Jim Arvo rephrased this same question.
An agnostic says something like this, right?: I believe that in principle, a human being cannot know whether an entity exists that has the properties ascribed to "god". The agnostic's state of belief is not an act of will, not the virtue "faith" spoken of by St. Paul. It's intellectual assent to a proposition; a judgment, if you will. This assent comes after reflection on and weighing of evidence taken from many quarters.
An atheist says: I don't believe the entity exists that has the properties ascribed to "god". This can be rewritten, I believe the entity etc. does not exist; because if "I don't believe" just means "I suspend judgment," then the atheist has collapsed into the agnostic.
So, does the atheist have grounds for his/her judgment? We've already talked about the degree of epistemic certainty involved in making a judgment "that not P" based on lack of supporting evidence for P. You haven't replied to my questions about hippogriffs and the King of France, though. Do we have grounds for making the judgments that those entities don't exist? I'd say, for starters, that if the entity's definition entails contradiction/s, we can get serious about cutting it out. Can we agree that square triangles don't exist, or that maybe mammals with no hearts nor lungs don't exist? What about God, then? Many mutually contradictory things are said of the God of the Bible. Maybe we can have more confidence about atheism toward that god than we can about atheism toward some supreme creative force out there somewhere, of which very few specific properties are predicated.
In the end I also feel dishonest saying I'm an agnostic when I live as though there is no god. I can't see the point of saying I'm agnostic, somehow.
Me: et: Following your position would lead us into epistemological and philosophical nihilism. Can we know anything? If not, should we even be having debates on anything?
"A disbelief is also a belief" - What about a lack of belief? Anyhow, I think we have adequately punctured all evidence for the existence of gods, so we are right to say that we believe gods don't exist. Unless the gods in question were apathetic and undetectable. In which case I could say you could not prove that you were not living in the Matrix, therefore we should give up all hope for rational discussion and lapse into despondency and despair. Or, if you prefer, I would not be able to prove that the world would not spontaneously vanish in the next second. For all intents and purposes, a positive assertion about existence needs to be proven, while a negative assertion does not, since non-existence is the status quo.
You say we need to continuously challenge our current beliefs. I agree, but not necessarily to the point of reading "every single challenge to that belief" and debunking "all of them". Take religion, for example. Since there are tens of thousands of religions (at least) in existence, or that have ever existed, should we take the time to debunk them all? Surely not, for that would take at least a dozen lifetimes, what with the voluminous amount of disingenuous apologist arguments formulated over the centuries.
Remaining open-minded is not the same as being non-commital - if one applies your logic, one must be agnostic about EVERYTHING, since at any point new information might come up to debunk your previously held beliefs. One would not be able to say that, say, Lee Kuan Yew is 80 years old, for at any point evidence of a wrongly entered date of birth might arise. Can we then assert even such a seemingly obvious fact safely? Should we live in a world of grave uncertainty and epistemological nihilism? I think not.
et: if nothing can be known for certain, how do *you* know that there's "one, all-encompassing truth"? And how do you know "we have not found the truth (underlying all of quantum physics, if not all of religion) today"?
We will never have total certainty about anything, for even the laws of logic might one day we warped and 1 + 1 = 3. Does that mean we should be agnostic about everything? Perhaps we should be agnostic
You tease a valid point about uncertainty so far that it becomes facetious. Following your logic to its ultimate conclusion, nought is left but chaos and uncertainty. Reductio ad absurdum.
***
The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
--- Henry Louis Mencken
***
Of all the Livejournal memes/chains that I've seen, this is the most retarded, yet hilarious:
If there is someone on your friends list you would like to take, strip naked, tie them to a bed post, eat them until they scream, then fuck them until both of you are sensless and unable to fuck anymore, then wait about 5 minutes, and do it all over again, then post this exact sentence in YOUR journal.
>_>
<_<
Post ID: 110322674538961041
"It is not by prayer and humility that you cause things to go as you wish, but by acquiring a knowledge of natural laws. The power you acquire in this way is much greater and more reliable than that formerly supposed to be acquired by prayer, because you never could tell whether your prayer would be favorably heard in heaven. The power of prayer, moreover, had recognized limits; it would have been impious to ask too much. But the power of science has no known limits. We were told that faith could remove mountains, but no one believed it; we are now told that the atomic bomb can remove mountains, and everyone believes it." - Bertrand Russell
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Hallelujah (chorus)
Hallelujah! For the lord god omnipotent reigneth. The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our lord, and of his christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
King of kings, and lord of lords. Hallelujah!
***
The Origin of Children
(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork Science, University of Helsinki)
(English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of Alberta)
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
***
Something for Chara:
John Horgan - Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism
"The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.
Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.
Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.
What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so... But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped."
***
Hearing out religion in public debate - Dec 15, 2004
"Thoughtful debate over how to shape our life as a community is precluded if religious voices are gagged. This would disenfranchise people of religious faith, be undemocratic, and cause social disharmony." - Associate Professor Thio Li-ann (another law professor, so now A/P Tan Seow Hon is not the only religio-conservative writing op-eds for the ST)
budak asked for my "thoughts on the article... arguing against the notion of a secular system."
The article didn't really argue against a secular system. It merely asserted that religious views should be taken into account.
As philosopher Immanuel Kant taught, the logic of any moral argument is its capacity to be universalised. We should evaluate the merits of any view and ask: 'Does it serve the common good?' (from original article)
If we only apply this criterion, where would religion come into the picture? An idea coming from a religious viewpoint would have as much merit as the same idea coming from a seular viewpoint. The imperative: "Don't let the poor starve", if commanded by gods, has as much merit as the same imperative motivated by secular humanism.
What secularists mean when they disavow and discount religiously-grounded views is that ideas should be evaluated not on their spiritual merits, if any, but on their intellectual merits. ie "My god said so" is not an adequate basis on which to make public policy. As such, A/P Thio is really going off in the wrong direction.
Someone on the Young Republic mailing list:
"What I find most disconcerting is that her examples of societal and religious values coming together turns on those which are socially conservative and would limit personal choice when there might be no tangible 3rd party harm (pornography) beyond that of offending the socially conservative I suppose. With regards to AIDS, I find it terribly disturbing that there should be an ideological war on how best to combat it, especially those which support abstinence only policies or a mixed one.
I mean, where is the voice of the religious left?"
***
Wannabe Lawyer
"The dangers, as always, with centralised decision-making, are unforeseen or unintended outcomes, or just plain stupidity. The list of failures is long and illustrious. Chartered Semiconductors, Micropolis Hard Drives, the North-East MRT line, the IT industry boom and bust (anyone remember the singapore one network?), the purchase of Global Crossing by ST Telemedia without due diligence; the belated entry into the biomedical sector at a time when Big Pharma are finding it hard to innovate due to stupid patent policy, and at the same time strengthening all the components of IP laws without public debate and consultation, and ALSO ignoring a growing body of empirical evidence and real-world studies which strongly suggest that the chilling effects of overbroad and overstrong IP laws actually hinder and obstruct innovation and creativity."
Ah well. What can we do? As always, father knows best. The unwashed masses are naive, ignorant and stupid, and require someone to tell them what is right, good and proper, and what they would *really* want if they were enlightened.
As nilsinelabore comments in an earlier post about similar issues:
"Unfortunately our press is not there to question any questionable policies. The best and brightest of her youth are either co-opted into the establishment or have migrated. The remaining ones who dared to challenge the status quo probably will have their heads broken by knuckle dusters."
***
"lalala", whose email is "lalala@gmail.com", homepage is "lalala.blogspot.com" and who hails from "lalaland" writes:
"gosh gabriel, have you read hornby's 'how to be good'? you'd qualify as the angriest boy in town."
No, I have not, and I'm not sure what the Angriest Man in Holloway did to qualify for that title.
***
A novel perspective, courtesy of my favourite misanthrope:
"The same mentally-challenged pigs who are pro-censorship also tend to be anti-abortion. These two antiquated notions seem to go hand-in-hand, not unlike sodomy and Vaseline.
"Choose life!" these vapid creeps will bleat.
My question is, WHY?
Choose life, my ass. What these monsters are "choosing" actually involves no choice at all. The poor kid coming down the chute has no choice. That child is hardly begging to be born into decades of screaming hell with savage dumbshits for parents and a lifetime of wage slavery to look forward to afterward. And these clods who "choose life" will likely choose it several times, so the first mistake (i.e., kid) can have other kids to fight with. Ever seen two young siblings get together without fighting? No. Neither have I. So what's the appeal of having a multiple litter?
"You could be aborting the next Einstein," some brainless jackass will bray.
Right. But you're probably aborting the next Jeffrey Dahmer, instead."
***
FACT (Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore)
"Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to gamble?
If your answer is "NO", then join us, as families living in Singapore, to say "NO" to the casino threat that's looming.
We recognise that there can be no end to the arguments on the pros and cons of having a casino in Singapore. We recognise that lotteries & betting are already legalized in some way or another in Singapore. So what's wrong with having a casino?
As concerned parents, we say: It's time to draw a line.
We are ordinary Singaporean families. We want to raise our families without the temptations and threats presented by a casino operation.
When the fundamental values of growing a family is affected by economic expediency, we as a society, must have the maturity and the courage to say "NO". Whatever the so-called economic value that is touted.
Will you be one of the Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore? Join us in petitioning our President and urge him to advise our government to reject any plan allowing a casino in Singapore.
It's not too late to turn things right. Sign Up Now!!"
Someone should set up an opposing movement:
Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to let the Moral Majority (TM) impose their whims on the rest?
If your answer is "NO", then join us, as progressive intellectuals living in Singapore, to say "NO" to the Moral Majority whose shrill cries and appeals to emotion and "morals" drown out good sense.
We recognise that there can be no end to the arguments on relative morality, and no shortage of prophets of doom warning of an impending apocalypse if we give up our faux Asian Values. We recognise that the same arguments and appeals to emotion that some organisations are using have been used time and time again against various disparate causes, but in those cases have since faltered and now seem ludicrous, just as the current ruckus will one day seem a visceral backlash towards liberalisation by conservatives.
As level-headed people, we say: It's time to draw a line.
We are ordinary Singaporeans. We want to live our lives, sans families (as more and more are doing these days) or otherwise, without having to suffer the dictates of a paranoid conservative faction.
When the fundamental value of liberty is affected by distinctly illusory spectres of doom conjured up by self-proclaimed guardians of Morality and The Family, we as a society, must have the maturity and the courage to say "NO", however raucous the noises made by those wanting to return to an era of paternalism and rigidity.
Will you be one of the Individuals For Reason? Join us in petitioning our President and urge him to advise our government to continue in its liberalisation, so we may progress as a nation.
It's not too late to turn things right. Sign Up Now!!
Someone: "Who's up for setting up FARTS? Thats Families Against the kranji Racecourse Threat to Singapore!"
Amazing why the Moral Majority (TM) has not chosen to go after:
- The National Lottery (State-sanctioned and state-run gambling! A clear imprimatur from the government, if there ever was one)
- Cigarettes (Largesse from the state to destroy your bodies. Imagine the health care costs shouldered by grieving families. Imagine how people destroy their bodies over many decades. People can't stop themselves when they start gambling - so too does it apply for cigarettes. We must save idiots from themselves!)
- Prostitution/massage parlors (Again, state-sanctioned and state-regulated. Are the authorities saying it's alright for people to buy sex? What kind of message are we sending to our children?!)
- Alcohol (Essentially, it's a poison, which is why the liver metabolises it. Are we telling our children that it is alright to poison themselves just for fleeting, momentary pleasure?!)
- Abortion/contraception (An endorsement of casual sex, or sex purely undertaken for pleasure, if there ever was one)
- Divorce (Our divorce rates are approaching those of the West! Morality is crumbling. Children are suffering. Nevermind that previously many people were stuck in miserable, loveless marriages. All that matters is that they were married on paper. Who cares about the quality of their relationship, or the effects on their children?! We must maintain appearances; it is an Asian Value after all to pride appearances over reality.)
- School fee hikes (School fee hikes teach our children that such a priceless thing as learning should be charged for. What kind of attitude are we inculcating in them for the Knowledge Based Economy?)
- Gays (We must set up 'Families Against Gays in Singapore' - FAGS, since we all know gays are ruinous for the institution of the Family)
- Chinese 'B' (We are allowing standards to drop just because some lazy kids complain? Hah! We must teach them the value of hard work and knowing their roots.)
- Chewing gum (By legalising chewing gum, we are teaching our kids that it is alright to spit or dispose of used gum all over the place)
- Multi storied buildings (We are encouraging people to commit suicide by leaping to their deaths from multi storied buildings... All buildings in Singapore must be made single-storied)
- Boat trips to Batam (Since everyone knows that the only reason Singaporean men travel to Batam is to have sex, we should ban males travelling singly or in groups from going to Batam. We need 'BUSTED' - 'Batam Uncles Sex Trip Education')
Really, we should ban the stock market too, for it does not create any real wealth or produce any real output, and it can similarly bankrupt people.
***
I always say: the way to get rich is to organise seminars teaching people how to get rich.
Alwyn: "even this clement chiang fella.. 2k per person per seminar.. and he has like classes of 200 people? that's close to 400k per class! minute costs
and the fact that he has a few classes going on at the same time? this guy needn't trade options to be rich! just teach it only!"
***
Keeping the Faith in My Doubt - "Opposing self-righteousness is easier said than done. How do you denounce dogmatism in others without succumbing to it yourself? No one embodied this pitfall more than the philosopher Karl Popper, who railed against certainty in science, philosophy, religion and politics and yet was notoriously dogmatic. I once asked Popper, who called his stance critical rationalism, about charges that he would not brook criticism of his ideas in his classroom. He replied indignantly that he welcomed students' criticism; only if they persisted after he pointed out their errors would he banish them from class."
Science Fair Projects - Bartholin's gland - "The Bartholin's glands (also called Bartholin glands or greater vestibular glands) are two glands located slightly below and to the left and right of the opening of the Censored page in women. They secrete mucus to provide lubrication, especially when the woman is Censored page, thus facilitating Censored page."
wth
Spider experiments with Drugs - "Scientists at the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have turned their attention from the mysteries of the cosmos to a more esoteric area of research: what happens when you get a spider stoned."
While browsing the member list of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists I saw the picture of the hair of Patrick J. O'Brien, LFHCfS, Institut fuer Geowissenschaften, Full Professor, Chair of Petrology,
Universität Potsdam, Germany. OMG.
Interesting Christmas research - "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Joel Waldfogel at the University of Pennsylvania reported in the American Economic Review: "A potentially important micro-economic aspect of gift-giving is that gifts may be mismatched with the recipients' preferences ... Estimates indicate that between a tenth and a third of the value of holiday gifts is destroyed by gift-giving."
MovieMartyr.com - Suffering for your cinema...
Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - Hallelujah (chorus)
Hallelujah! For the lord god omnipotent reigneth. The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our lord, and of his christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
King of kings, and lord of lords. Hallelujah!
***
The Origin of Children
(Original version by Erkki Aalto, Dept. of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Stork Science, University of Helsinki)
(English version by Jopi Louko, Institute of Stork Research, University of Alberta)
Two different theories exist concerning the origin of children: the theory of sexual reproduction, and the theory of the stork. Many people believe in the theory of sexual reproduction because they have been taught this theory at school.
In reality, however, many of the world's leading scientists are in favour of the theory of the stork. If the theory of sexual reproduction is taught in schools, it must only be taught as a theory and not as the truth. Alternative theories, such as the theory of the stork, must also be taught.
Evidence supporting the theory of the stork includes the following:
1. It is a scientifically established fact that the stork does exist. This can be confirmed by every ornithologist.
2. The alleged human foetal development contains several features that the theory of sexual reproduction is unable to explain.
3. The theory of sexual reproduction implies that a child is approximately nine months old at birth. This is an absurd claim. Everyone knows that a newborn child is newborn.
4. According to the theory of sexual reproduction, children are a result of sexual intercourse. There are, however, several well documented cases where sexual intercourse has not led to the birth of a child.
5. Statistical studies in the Netherlands have indicated a positive correlation between the birth rate and the number of storks. Both are decreasing.
6. The theory of the stork can be investigated by rigorous scientific methods. The only assumption involved is that children are delivered by the stork.
***
Something for Chara:
John Horgan - Why I Can't Embrace Buddhism
"The major vehicle for achieving enlightenment is meditation, touted by both Buddhists and alternative-medicine gurus as a potent way to calm and comprehend our minds. The trouble is, decades of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.
Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist and Zen practitioner Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.
Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures. Far from it—and this is where the distance between certain humanistic values and Buddhism becomes most apparent. To someone who sees himself and others as unreal, human suffering and death may appear laughably trivial. This may explain why some Buddhist masters have behaved more like nihilists than saints. Chogyam Trungpa, who helped introduce Tibetan Buddhism to the United States in the 1970s, was a promiscuous drunk and bully, and he died of alcohol-related illness in 1987. Zen lore celebrates the sadistic or masochistic behavior of sages such as Bodhidharma, who is said to have sat in meditation for so long that his legs became gangrenous.
What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible—like the pope, but more so... But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped."
***
Hearing out religion in public debate - Dec 15, 2004
"Thoughtful debate over how to shape our life as a community is precluded if religious voices are gagged. This would disenfranchise people of religious faith, be undemocratic, and cause social disharmony." - Associate Professor Thio Li-ann (another law professor, so now A/P Tan Seow Hon is not the only religio-conservative writing op-eds for the ST)
budak asked for my "thoughts on the article... arguing against the notion of a secular system."
The article didn't really argue against a secular system. It merely asserted that religious views should be taken into account.
As philosopher Immanuel Kant taught, the logic of any moral argument is its capacity to be universalised. We should evaluate the merits of any view and ask: 'Does it serve the common good?' (from original article)
If we only apply this criterion, where would religion come into the picture? An idea coming from a religious viewpoint would have as much merit as the same idea coming from a seular viewpoint. The imperative: "Don't let the poor starve", if commanded by gods, has as much merit as the same imperative motivated by secular humanism.
What secularists mean when they disavow and discount religiously-grounded views is that ideas should be evaluated not on their spiritual merits, if any, but on their intellectual merits. ie "My god said so" is not an adequate basis on which to make public policy. As such, A/P Thio is really going off in the wrong direction.
Someone on the Young Republic mailing list:
"What I find most disconcerting is that her examples of societal and religious values coming together turns on those which are socially conservative and would limit personal choice when there might be no tangible 3rd party harm (pornography) beyond that of offending the socially conservative I suppose. With regards to AIDS, I find it terribly disturbing that there should be an ideological war on how best to combat it, especially those which support abstinence only policies or a mixed one.
I mean, where is the voice of the religious left?"
***
Wannabe Lawyer
"The dangers, as always, with centralised decision-making, are unforeseen or unintended outcomes, or just plain stupidity. The list of failures is long and illustrious. Chartered Semiconductors, Micropolis Hard Drives, the North-East MRT line, the IT industry boom and bust (anyone remember the singapore one network?), the purchase of Global Crossing by ST Telemedia without due diligence; the belated entry into the biomedical sector at a time when Big Pharma are finding it hard to innovate due to stupid patent policy, and at the same time strengthening all the components of IP laws without public debate and consultation, and ALSO ignoring a growing body of empirical evidence and real-world studies which strongly suggest that the chilling effects of overbroad and overstrong IP laws actually hinder and obstruct innovation and creativity."
Ah well. What can we do? As always, father knows best. The unwashed masses are naive, ignorant and stupid, and require someone to tell them what is right, good and proper, and what they would *really* want if they were enlightened.
As nilsinelabore comments in an earlier post about similar issues:
"Unfortunately our press is not there to question any questionable policies. The best and brightest of her youth are either co-opted into the establishment or have migrated. The remaining ones who dared to challenge the status quo probably will have their heads broken by knuckle dusters."
***
"lalala", whose email is "lalala@gmail.com", homepage is "lalala.blogspot.com" and who hails from "lalaland" writes:
"gosh gabriel, have you read hornby's 'how to be good'? you'd qualify as the angriest boy in town."
No, I have not, and I'm not sure what the Angriest Man in Holloway did to qualify for that title.
***
A novel perspective, courtesy of my favourite misanthrope:
"The same mentally-challenged pigs who are pro-censorship also tend to be anti-abortion. These two antiquated notions seem to go hand-in-hand, not unlike sodomy and Vaseline.
"Choose life!" these vapid creeps will bleat.
My question is, WHY?
Choose life, my ass. What these monsters are "choosing" actually involves no choice at all. The poor kid coming down the chute has no choice. That child is hardly begging to be born into decades of screaming hell with savage dumbshits for parents and a lifetime of wage slavery to look forward to afterward. And these clods who "choose life" will likely choose it several times, so the first mistake (i.e., kid) can have other kids to fight with. Ever seen two young siblings get together without fighting? No. Neither have I. So what's the appeal of having a multiple litter?
"You could be aborting the next Einstein," some brainless jackass will bray.
Right. But you're probably aborting the next Jeffrey Dahmer, instead."
***
FACT (Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore)
"Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to gamble?
If your answer is "NO", then join us, as families living in Singapore, to say "NO" to the casino threat that's looming.
We recognise that there can be no end to the arguments on the pros and cons of having a casino in Singapore. We recognise that lotteries & betting are already legalized in some way or another in Singapore. So what's wrong with having a casino?
As concerned parents, we say: It's time to draw a line.
We are ordinary Singaporean families. We want to raise our families without the temptations and threats presented by a casino operation.
When the fundamental values of growing a family is affected by economic expediency, we as a society, must have the maturity and the courage to say "NO". Whatever the so-called economic value that is touted.
Will you be one of the Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore? Join us in petitioning our President and urge him to advise our government to reject any plan allowing a casino in Singapore.
It's not too late to turn things right. Sign Up Now!!"
Someone should set up an opposing movement:
Do you want your children to grow up learning that it is OK to let the Moral Majority (TM) impose their whims on the rest?
If your answer is "NO", then join us, as progressive intellectuals living in Singapore, to say "NO" to the Moral Majority whose shrill cries and appeals to emotion and "morals" drown out good sense.
We recognise that there can be no end to the arguments on relative morality, and no shortage of prophets of doom warning of an impending apocalypse if we give up our faux Asian Values. We recognise that the same arguments and appeals to emotion that some organisations are using have been used time and time again against various disparate causes, but in those cases have since faltered and now seem ludicrous, just as the current ruckus will one day seem a visceral backlash towards liberalisation by conservatives.
As level-headed people, we say: It's time to draw a line.
We are ordinary Singaporeans. We want to live our lives, sans families (as more and more are doing these days) or otherwise, without having to suffer the dictates of a paranoid conservative faction.
When the fundamental value of liberty is affected by distinctly illusory spectres of doom conjured up by self-proclaimed guardians of Morality and The Family, we as a society, must have the maturity and the courage to say "NO", however raucous the noises made by those wanting to return to an era of paternalism and rigidity.
Will you be one of the Individuals For Reason? Join us in petitioning our President and urge him to advise our government to continue in its liberalisation, so we may progress as a nation.
It's not too late to turn things right. Sign Up Now!!
Someone: "Who's up for setting up FARTS? Thats Families Against the kranji Racecourse Threat to Singapore!"
Amazing why the Moral Majority (TM) has not chosen to go after:
- The National Lottery (State-sanctioned and state-run gambling! A clear imprimatur from the government, if there ever was one)
- Cigarettes (Largesse from the state to destroy your bodies. Imagine the health care costs shouldered by grieving families. Imagine how people destroy their bodies over many decades. People can't stop themselves when they start gambling - so too does it apply for cigarettes. We must save idiots from themselves!)
- Prostitution/massage parlors (Again, state-sanctioned and state-regulated. Are the authorities saying it's alright for people to buy sex? What kind of message are we sending to our children?!)
- Alcohol (Essentially, it's a poison, which is why the liver metabolises it. Are we telling our children that it is alright to poison themselves just for fleeting, momentary pleasure?!)
- Abortion/contraception (An endorsement of casual sex, or sex purely undertaken for pleasure, if there ever was one)
- Divorce (Our divorce rates are approaching those of the West! Morality is crumbling. Children are suffering. Nevermind that previously many people were stuck in miserable, loveless marriages. All that matters is that they were married on paper. Who cares about the quality of their relationship, or the effects on their children?! We must maintain appearances; it is an Asian Value after all to pride appearances over reality.)
- School fee hikes (School fee hikes teach our children that such a priceless thing as learning should be charged for. What kind of attitude are we inculcating in them for the Knowledge Based Economy?)
- Gays (We must set up 'Families Against Gays in Singapore' - FAGS, since we all know gays are ruinous for the institution of the Family)
- Chinese 'B' (We are allowing standards to drop just because some lazy kids complain? Hah! We must teach them the value of hard work and knowing their roots.)
- Chewing gum (By legalising chewing gum, we are teaching our kids that it is alright to spit or dispose of used gum all over the place)
- Multi storied buildings (We are encouraging people to commit suicide by leaping to their deaths from multi storied buildings... All buildings in Singapore must be made single-storied)
- Boat trips to Batam (Since everyone knows that the only reason Singaporean men travel to Batam is to have sex, we should ban males travelling singly or in groups from going to Batam. We need 'BUSTED' - 'Batam Uncles Sex Trip Education')
Really, we should ban the stock market too, for it does not create any real wealth or produce any real output, and it can similarly bankrupt people.
***
I always say: the way to get rich is to organise seminars teaching people how to get rich.
Alwyn: "even this clement chiang fella.. 2k per person per seminar.. and he has like classes of 200 people? that's close to 400k per class! minute costs
and the fact that he has a few classes going on at the same time? this guy needn't trade options to be rich! just teach it only!"
***
Keeping the Faith in My Doubt - "Opposing self-righteousness is easier said than done. How do you denounce dogmatism in others without succumbing to it yourself? No one embodied this pitfall more than the philosopher Karl Popper, who railed against certainty in science, philosophy, religion and politics and yet was notoriously dogmatic. I once asked Popper, who called his stance critical rationalism, about charges that he would not brook criticism of his ideas in his classroom. He replied indignantly that he welcomed students' criticism; only if they persisted after he pointed out their errors would he banish them from class."
Science Fair Projects - Bartholin's gland - "The Bartholin's glands (also called Bartholin glands or greater vestibular glands) are two glands located slightly below and to the left and right of the opening of the Censored page in women. They secrete mucus to provide lubrication, especially when the woman is Censored page, thus facilitating Censored page."
wth
Spider experiments with Drugs - "Scientists at the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have turned their attention from the mysteries of the cosmos to a more esoteric area of research: what happens when you get a spider stoned."
While browsing the member list of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists I saw the picture of the hair of Patrick J. O'Brien, LFHCfS, Institut fuer Geowissenschaften, Full Professor, Chair of Petrology,
Universität Potsdam, Germany. OMG.
Interesting Christmas research - "The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Joel Waldfogel at the University of Pennsylvania reported in the American Economic Review: "A potentially important micro-economic aspect of gift-giving is that gifts may be mismatched with the recipients' preferences ... Estimates indicate that between a tenth and a third of the value of holiday gifts is destroyed by gift-giving."
MovieMartyr.com - Suffering for your cinema...
Post ID: 110321531035257667
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
