DISQUS

I think that's where the real discussion is to be had - why (and how) are bloggers different? Make no mistake, I think that as internet replaces television as the primary source of peoples' sources of news, product information etc., we could see a huge cultural change. Maybe I'm a bit OT now, but I just was hoping for a little more between the lines.

I think that's where the real discussion is to be had - why (and how) are bloggers different? Make no mistake, I think that as internet replaces television as the primary source of peoples' sources of news, product information etc., we could see a huge cultural change. Maybe I'm a bit OT now, but I just was hoping for a little more between the lines.

Why would IQs be lower in a third-world village? An seriously, what about blog reading (as opposed to DVD watching) implies that they wouldn't boo a national anthem? Its not that I don't see a connection (Blogs/Online media are cooler(in the McLuhian-sense)/more-interactive, don't feed you information whilst your brain rots; leading one to think that blog readers would be more intelligent, which somehow says they wouldn't be so rude/insensitive). Seriously though, do you actually think that goes without saying?

Why would IQs be lower in a third-world village? An seriously, what about blog reading (as opposed to DVD watching) implies that they wouldn't boo a national anthem? Its not that I don't see a connection (Blogs/Online media are cooler(in the McLuhian-sense)/more-interactive, don't feed you information whilst your brain rots; leading one to think that blog readers would be more intelligent, which somehow says they wouldn't be so rude/insensitive). Seriously though, do you actually think that goes without saying?

Could you qualify these statements a bit? It seems to me that there are huge differences between science and religion, even though they share some common ground. To me, religion is different because people take it personally, they define themselves and others with it, and not just the world around them. Thus, there are plenty of examples where 'science' fits very clearly into this definition. When this gap has been leaped, I think the dangers are the same: these religious moods can be used for political and personal gain. For example, this mass annihilation of the people who once inhabited this continent (native americans? insert non-offensive group descriptor here) was justified largely by the fact that they were not civilized - that is, they did not posses the various scientific and socio-scientific traits that Europeans had come to take as granted for anyone one 'fully human' (the fact that Christianity was also seen as a trait of 'being civilized' only further goes to show the potential for close proximity between a people's scientific advancement and their religious creed). Just the same, religions differences all over the world are manipulated to justify the less-than-humanness of a target group.
Being manipulated for horrible deeds, is not the fundamental characteristic of religion, however. Instead, I think that the part of religion that makes it dangerous (but not evil) and prone to abuse (but not a tyrant itself) is exactly the part of it that makes it religious. People take it personally. I don't think that will ever change. What I think can (and must) change is the way people view religion as fitting into civil life. In other words, it is not religion that needs to change - for it cannot, but the way people use it and work to ensure that it is not misused. It is totally inappropriate for anyone in a position of power to use something that anyone takes 'religiously' to manipulate them. Whether it is a tenet of a particular faith, a Scientific ethos, or a aspect of a national identity, these symbols must be entirely left out of the civil process. Separation of church and state, was (if you think we have truly achieved it) a good start. In fact, however, there are few people, and probably not nations, on earth that have truly achieved this mark of 'civilization'. Could a war ever be justified without some sort of these illegal manipulations?
Anyway, my point (at length) is, I suppose, simply that we will not achieve the desired classification of 'civilized' simply by blacklisting religion. In fact, we will do considerable harm to our goal. It is only by seeing the larger picture, of the way any attitude that can be taken in this wide sense of 'being religious', that we can truly keep them out of the political process. Moreover, it is only by accepting a multiplicity of world-views – including the fundamentally 'religious' one – that we as individuals can begin to accept what it is to live in a society where people's believes differ. Perhaps such scientific debates are a good model for this type of behavior. However, I do not think that hailing science as the father of modern society, and labeling religion as 'group-think barbarism', truly accepts the situation for what it is.

Could you qualify these statements a bit? It seems to me that there are huge differences between science and religion, even though they share some common ground. To me, religion is different because people take it personally, they define themselves and others with it, and not just the world around them. Thus, there are plenty of examples where 'science' fits very clearly into this definition. When this gap has been leaped, I think the dangers are the same: these religious moods can be used for political and personal gain. For example, this mass annihilation of the people who once inhabited this continent (native americans? insert non-offensive group descriptor here) was justified largely by the fact that they were not civilized - that is, they did not posses the various scientific and socio-scientific traits that Europeans had come to take as granted for anyone one 'fully human' (the fact that Christianity was also seen as a trait of 'being civilized' only further goes to show the potential for close proximity between a people's scientific advancement and their religious creed). Just the same, religions differences all over the world are manipulated to justify the less-than-humanness of a target group.
Being manipulated for horrible deeds, is not the fundamental characteristic of religion, however. Instead, I think that the part of religion that makes it dangerous (but not evil) and prone to abuse (but not a tyrant itself) is exactly the part of it that makes it religious. People take it personally. I don't think that will ever change. What I think can (and must) change is the way people view religion as fitting into civil life. In other words, it is not religion that needs to change - for it cannot, but the way people use it and work to ensure that it is not misused. It is totally inappropriate for anyone in a position of power to use something that anyone takes 'religiously' to manipulate them. Whether it is a tenet of a particular faith, a Scientific ethos, or a aspect of a national identity, these symbols must be entirely left out of the civil process. Separation of church and state, was (if you think we have truly achieved it) a good start. In fact, however, there are few people, and probably not nations, on earth that have truly achieved this mark of 'civilization'. Could a war ever be justified without some sort of these illegal manipulations?
Anyway, my point (at length) is, I suppose, simply that we will not achieve the desired classification of 'civilized' simply by blacklisting religion. In fact, we will do considerable harm to our goal. It is only by seeing the larger picture, of the way any attitude that can be taken in this wide sense of 'being religious', that we can truly keep them out of the political process. Moreover, it is only by accepting a multiplicity of world-views – including the fundamentally 'religious' one – that we as individuals can begin to accept what it is to live in a society where people's believes differ. Perhaps such scientific debates are a good model for this type of behavior. However, I do not think that hailing science as the father of modern society, and labeling religion as 'group-think barbarism', truly accepts the situation for what it is.

This is a tricky subject. Its ridiculous to sue a school for not providing funding to openly anti-gay/gay-excluding clubs, although the lines blur a bit if it is a public school. Some of the cases in this article are downright perplexing, though. I mean, you pretty much have to agree that as long as someone is not being harrassed or abused, people should be free to say whatever they want. There are two problems with this simple concept, though. One that is often forgotten is that this does not always apply to private institutions. Private institutions can sometimes deny or exclude certain types of speech, and other times cannot. The other problem is that what consitutes 'harassment' is not really clear in the first place. Many things that could be personally offensive (ie "Gays are sinners") are not truly harrassment - unless they are directed at a particular person. Anyway, this is an interesting read.

This is a tricky subject. Its ridiculous to sue a school for not providing funding to openly anti-gay/gay-excluding clubs, although the lines blur a bit if it is a public school. Some of the cases in this article are downright perplexing, though. I mean, you pretty much have to agree that as long as someone is not being harrassed or abused, people should be free to say whatever they want. There are two problems with this simple concept, though. One that is often forgotten is that this does not always apply to private institutions. Private institutions can sometimes deny or exclude certain types of speech, and other times cannot. The other problem is that what consitutes 'harassment' is not really clear in the first place. Many things that could be personally offensive (ie "Gays are sinners") are not truly harrassment - unless they are directed at a particular person. Anyway, this is an interesting read.

Wow. This is simply ridiculous, put perhaps still worth the read.. My favorite part - the day men were said to become aroused by breasts is called "big bang day".

Wow. This is simply ridiculous, put perhaps still worth the read.. My favorite part - the day men were said to become aroused by breasts is called "big bang day".

Here's a good trick: set your "Post to Weblog" app to cocoalicious, Pukka, or some other similar app, and you can post a link directly to del.icio.us right from NetNewsWire

Here's a good trick: set your "Post to Weblog" app to cocoalicious, Pukka, or some other similar app, and you can post a link directly to del.icio.us right from NetNewsWire

Helana: got a co.mments account - very nice. Does comments just fine, but doesn't seem to track message board threads at all. Any ideas about how to track these?

Helana: got a co.mments account - very nice. Does comments just fine, but doesn't seem to track message board threads at all. Any ideas about how to track these?

I'm going to say go with an RSS client. Checkout NetNewsWire Lite or bloglines.com if you want a web interface.

I'm going to say go with an RSS client. Checkout NetNewsWire Lite or bloglines.com if you want a web interface.

Any suggestions for staying on top of comment threads? I currently use RSS to do all my news reading but monitoring comment threads is still really inefficient. like this thread, for example - I'll drag it to my dock and check it manually from time to time. surely there's a better way?

Any suggestions for staying on top of comment threads? I currently use RSS to do all my news reading but monitoring comment threads is still really inefficient. like this thread, for example - I'll drag it to my dock and check it manually from time to time. surely there's a better way?

Wow. You've inspired me to write a post in my blog. Hope it helps,
william

Wow. You've inspired me to write a post in my blog. Hope it helps,
william