bleeding heart

Your argument is confused. By your own formulation, the Europeans and their North American offshoots have behaved in profoundly "savage" ways. Which begs the question: why reserve the loaded term only for others...never for your own culture? And is it really your contention that the brutality visited upon the First Nations people is only a result of their "savage" attacks upon white settlers?

I agree. I see no reason that religious faith should hold a special place in the realm of argument. Why the peculiar position, to be navigated with such unique care for personal beliefs? To paraphrase someone else: "A militant religious person is one who blows up buildings or murders physicians. A militant atheist is one who speaks disrespectfully about religion."

jbg, you make some alarming leaps of logic here. This causes you to indulge in some chauvinism which should be beneath you. Let's see if we can't pluck a turd or two out of the sewer of your post to explain what you've got wrong. First of all, the reason the word "savages" has fallen into disrepute is not, or not mostly, because of political correctness (a label that is wantonly overused in any case); it's because it is at bottom a racist designation. That is, "savages" was not primarily used to convey actual behavior...it was used to convey "otherness"; that is, those whom the Europeans and their offshoots were killing and subjugating. This is roughly the way you are using it now, jbg. Look who you're talking about: Palestinians (placed in scare quotes in the typical formulation)...as well as First Nations people, and "barbarians" in general. All "Savages." In other words, anyone whom Europe and its political/cultural descendants CHOOSES to fight--for any reason, rightly or wrongly--are "savages"...uncivilized. Bad Guys, in effect.

I think a better way to navigate the matter is to look at the donation habits and subsequent effects of other lobbies, and compare them. I hasten to add that I haven't done this, so I'm not trying to be authoritative about it. But I would contend there's a much stronger and more influential lobby--influential domestically and internationally. The Business Lobby. Now it's true that there is no single "Business lobby," but rather multiple lobbies, ostensibly in competition. But when it comes to ideological factors, as well as a broad influence on foreign policy directions, I think it could be argued that they are de facto a single lobby...and I think they would completely eclipse AIPAC (and all other lobbies) by a large measure. That's my hypothesis, for what it's worth.

According to Wikipedia, 24% of Canadians claim no religious affiliation. And that doesn't automatically determine that all of those people are atheists. So by your reckoning, we can trust the 75%^ more than we can trust the rest? A better way would be to find stats on, for a start, criminals. Do you think there's a higher percentage of atheists among criminals...or a higher percentage of people who consider themselves affiliated with religion somehow, and who are criminals?

The argument that atheism is a belief exactly as religious faith is, as in the other side of the same coin.

It's a lazy argument, and quite frustrating. And no one would stand for it in any other type of argument (well...maybe partisan electoral politics. )

Very gracious, Rue, in fact disarming. Thanks.

Yes, I am definitely stating that AIPAC doesn't control US policy, not even close, and I've always said this. I've never implied otherwise; in fact, the ONLY times I've mentioned the lobby was to disagree with this or that poster about its alleged tremendous power. That's it. Which is why I was so baffled about your reading of my view...my view is literally the near-opposite of what you perceived. But AIPAC controlling the United States? Honestly, the idea seems illogical on its face. The US and Israel align in certain ways on policy...but this is not because of some undue influence of the Jewish State. It's a geopolitical matter, not a Lobby matter. Further still, like I've always said, I think the US exerts more influence on Israel than the other way 'round. Whether their influence is good, bad, or a combination, I don't feel knowledgeable enough to say, personally. And even if I'm wrong about that, there's plainly nothing about Jewish conspiracy or whatnot to my perception of it. Hell, the US exerts a lot of influence on Canadian policy (see my sig). That doesn't make me anti-Canadian, I don't think.

In fact, I did, the very few times we had a discussion.

Wasn't Bitsy (not to be confused with Betsy) an American? She had lots of interesting things to say.

I use the same definition of "terrorist" as does everyone else. As for "support"...since you erroneously determine I am talking about "one decades old example" (said example which occurred two years before 9/11...ancient history...why can't we all move on, eh Argus?) then you are aware of a couple of points. I know you're aware of them because of the links I provided for you...including declassified official US documents. So you are aware that the "support" you place in scare quotes is active support by any definition of the term. Explicit support. Stated support...followed by material support. And so you're also aware of said material support...which is again, outright, necessary to the violence, and part of the public record which you pretend, for reasons of your own, to not comprehend. Also, you're aware of the diplomatic support, the conscious attempt (very successful) that the 25-year terror of mass murder, rapes, tortures and so on continued. Since you're aware of all this, and it's part of the official record, you're pretence here is a bit embarrassing. But it's far from the only case--as you well know. Further, as I said, there are plenty of other crimes that don't, or don't clearly, fall under the rubric of "terrorist" so specifically....but they're still crimes. I'm not deflecting; I'm adding to the conversations by explaining our part in it...while you wish to declare that H2O is Hydrogen, full stop. But I'm not making the argument that one side is guilty and one is not. I reject such a view outright. That's your view...that we should remain focused on what others do, and pretend (hilariously) that our part is ancient history... ....even as you try to deny or downplay THAT "old" stuff as well! That is exactly what you have been doing the other way--in multiple discussions I've had with you--as I pointed out. So your I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I attempts fall rather flat. At any rate, as I already said (and for which you have offered no rebuttal...because it's a truism), the moral and practical stance is to be more concerned with the wrongdoing of us and our allies. The Statist cowardly view is, predictably and logically, the precise opposite.

Your caricature is noted, and rejected. I have had numerous discussions with posters here who simply refuse to concede the (uncontroversially true, and demonstrable) fact that powerful Western nations have routinely supported terrorism, of both the state and sub-national variety--and do so intentionally and materially. And many other enormous crimes against humanity as well. And on a much larger and more devastating scale than such also-rans as, say, Iran's proxy relationship with Hezbollah. Who are amateurs, comparatively. More to the point: neither Dre, nor I--in fact, a vanishingly few "leftists", deny the agency of terrorists or dictators or other killers' responsibility for their behavior. That's why you never cite any of these alleged sins in your grandiose assertions....because you can't. Because you have nothing to cite. That's because it's all impression to you...because you think it better to focus on crimes of others, rather than ourselves. Dre and I plainly and explicitly disagree. Rather, we are more concerned with what our leaders, our countries, and our allies do than what others do...and we're more concerned about our PART in international terror and violence; that's not denying anyone else's responsibility--it's only concentrating on our own. You know, in defense and support of bedrock democratic principles of accountability...not to mention the same sort of basic morality that everyone teaches their children. And this is what bothers you, for...well, one of the two reasons I've posited in the previous post, perhaps.

Whenever a certain group of Western allies are scrutinized--using, oh, say, the lunatic Left practice of applying similar standards to ourselves that we routinely apply to others--the predictable response is that the person "hates the West" (especially the US), or that he or she "supports the dictator/terrorist/mass killer" or what have you. This is almost literally a daily occurrence here on WS, even with our relatively small group. (To a more or less larger degree, criticism of France's imperial monstrosities are given a bit more leeway...an interesting topic in and of itself, I should think.) This is all old hat. We see it with Islamist fanatics now; we saw it with totalitarian Communists back in the day. And probably with the Barbarians at the gates in ancient Rome. I believe the knee-jerk defensiveness comes from more than a single impulse; some folks are fully aware that the criticisms are 100% correct....so they desperately desire everyone to stop pointing them out, of "losing the plot" as it were. These people are Commissars in any meaningful sense of the term. Others, no doubt, are so deeply indoctrinated into the religion of the Benevolent West that their anger is more honest....if no less monumentally stupid.

Also, there's a demonstrable difference between the "Dismal science" of Economics and, well, actual science.

I like it.

There. This is the crux of it.

I find the questions a little surprising, since I anticipate that you feel they are, or are almost, rhetorical. The honest and genuine answer is that I could not care less.

I'd be interested to hear some support for this claim, too. Especially since it's the half-sister of the "Atheists must not have any moral compass" claim that I've heard eleven thousand times.

It's awesome. It's pretty much universally-recognized that the first season is the weakest. But it's only 6 or 7 episodes.

Well, if it must be a binary, then the other side is "Commissar." Also a popular stance.

And where in the world was I talking about "idyllic non-Western countries"? You object to Western nations--or perhaps only a few of them, this is unclear--being criticized as accountable for anything they do. Noted. Why I should give a rat's ass about anyone's perversely misplaced sense of nationalist loyalty, you have yet to make plain.

One episode left. I'm going to miss it, but I'm glad to see a show end on a quality high note like this. (I'm looking at you, Simpsons!)

I agree, it's repellent.

You seem to adhere to Bertrand Russell's view on the matter. So do I. He says if you want to get pedantic about it, he's an agnostic. But he was an agnostic of Christianity, Islam, Judaism et al in the same way he was an agnostic about the Homeric pantheon. So for all intents and purposes: atheist. But yes, also agnostic. Put that way, I don't think it's a contradiction at all. Now, since we have determined that there are different types of atheists, I think we can see that there are different types of agnostics as well. That is, if a self-described "agnostic" thinks only of his own culturally-dominant religion--Christianity, say--then he is as close to "believer" as he is to genuine agnosticism, I think.