Noyau (1)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

2,559 thoughts on “Noyau (1)”

  1. fifthmonarchyman:

    Neil Rickert: Here, “the public square” does not refer to official acts of government. Rather, it is the common areas where people can meet and talk to one another.

    I wonder if hotshoe is in favor of religious speech in public at all?
    I would like to see her justification of her position whatever it is.

    I was taught decent manners as a child. I was taught that people with manners never discuss religion in public.

    Although this would not rule out silently saying grace in a restaurant, it would rule out all the ostentatious piety which is such an indecent fixture of public christian life in USA. There should be no speeches thanking god for the football team’s win. Why should that be acceptable behavior? There’s no reason to indulge in that kind of exclusionary, hostile, god-loves-us-best-of-all display. Or rather, there is a reason: because christians are self-satisfied assholes, but that’s no reason such conduct should be tolerated by a diverse society.

    Of course, this would not rule out internet discussion, because we are in our own private space — we have no witnesses other than people who have mutually agreed to be here in this discussion space. It’s not rude, as is forcing your public bible displays on innocent bystanders who don’t want to witness your particular sectarian dogma.

    In fact, your own holy writ tells you not to pray in public. So don’t. If your mom and dad didn’t teach you good manners, it’s still not too late to learn.

  3. OMagain said:

    Given it’s all private to you and made up by you, how can anyone else understand it?

    Well, by the same way anyone understands anything anyone tells them. Investing some effort in paying attention to explanations and remembering.

  4. hotshoe_: I was taught decent manners as a child. I was taught that people with manners never discuss religion in public.

    Would you make this a law if you were in charge? Perhaps in the interest of public harmony?

    peace

  7. fifthmonarchyman:
    walto,

    That makes sense to me.

    quick questions

    Do you think Dawkin’s views reflect the tenets of atheism or do you think he deviates wildly from those tenets?

    Could you see someone like Dawkins forbidding religious teaching to children if he was in charge (for example)?

    Would such behavior be consistent or inconsistent with his atheism?

    peace

    I don’t really understand your first question (I take the “tenets of atheism” to be entirely constituted by either not believing in God or believing that there is no God–depending on how one understands the term), and I don’t know enough about Dawkins’ politics to hazard opinions on the other two. Maybe others here would know.

  8. fifthmonarchyman:

    hotshoe_: I was taught decent manners as a child. I was taught that people with manners never discuss religion in public.

    Would you make this a law if you were in charge? Perhaps in the interest of public harmony?

    So you’re implying that the majority of christians are such incorrigible assholes that we can’t teach them manners and they can’t behave themselves unless we make actual laws against their bad behavior?

    Well done, you!

  9. William J. Murray: Nice try, but the issue is murder and violent crime rates

    Actually, the issue as I saw it was your claim that arming the population and the police will prevent the type of horror just witnessed in France.

    Which is simply absurd. You happily pay 10k lives year after year as insurance against madmen running amok and killing 200? Is that what you are saying?

    Even professionals say that pulling a gun in such a situation will often be the wrong thing to do. The real police arrive, see you with a gun and you are now the target. Professionals with actual experience say this. I’m sure you know better however.

  10. EL said:

    But I will end by suggesting that you consider that a point to which there CAN be no rebuttal may not be a very good point.

    I’m not the one that decided to classify a point I don’t understand as “semantic nitpicking” in order to dismiss the difference between “somebody else” and a universal entity that is the very grounds of existence.

    So, according to you, the difference between “Universal being and fundamental ground of all existence” and “somebody else” = semantic nitpicking.

    Really?

  12. walto: don’t know enough about Dawkins’ politics to hazard opinions on the other two. Maybe others here would know.

    Well, I don’t know what fifthmonarchyman meant by his comment, but I take it as a reference to Dawkins stating that teaching children about hell is child abuse (which a child can feel as worse abuse than, say, a bit of casual molestation such as what Dawkins himself experienced at school). But as far as I know, Dawkins has never suggested that parents be forbidden from teaching religion to their children – only that people should be educated and persuaded out of the stupidity of abusing their children emotionally with religious teachings.

    Why is poor old Dawkins always a lightning rod for theist stupidity?

  13. OMagain: Japan.

    While violent crime rates are a little harder to pin down, let’s start with murder:

    Japan, 2014

    Japan Crime Statistics


    .83 per 100,000

    New Hampshire, 2014
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nhcrime.htm
    .9 per 100,000

    In NH you can get concealed or open-carry licences, for $10, and has some of the least strict gun laws in the nation. You don’t even have to have a license to carry a weapon while on foot – the licenses are strictly about carrying them in vehicles.

    Not bad for a state with some of the least strict gun laws in the nation – and Japan has a phenomenally low murder rate compared to the rest of the world.

  14. William J. Murray: So, according to you, the difference between “Universal being and fundamental ground of all existence” and “somebody else” = semantic nitpicking.

    What exactly is a universal being if not a universal someone?

  15. FWIW, I tried to compose a post on this ‘semantic nitpicking ‘ issue, but found it so difficult to describe the ridiculousness and triviality of trying to determine what constitutes semantic nitpicking that I had to admit defeat and give up.

  16. hotshoe_: I was taught decent manners as a child. I was taught that people with manners never discuss religion in public.

    That seems a bit too strong.

    Two people from the same church ought to be able to discuss the latest sermon while sitting on a park bench.

    And as for manners, I’m not impressed with the manners of the marketing industry.

  17. OMagain said:

    Which is simply absurd. You happily pay 10k lives year after year as insurance against madmen running amok and killing 200? Is that what you are saying?

    I already pointed out the error of your logic. You are assuming that the USA is a homogeneous whole when it comes to gun laws/possession. It is not. As my prior post points out, states with the least restrictive gun laws and licensing hurdles have murder rates comparable to Japan and the other low-murder rate countries around the world. The highest murder rates in the USA are in areas with restrictive gun control laws and especially those areas which disallow carrying firearms in public altogether.

    And here’s a very salient point: what would you prefer, you and some other citizens having firearms when such terrorists attack, or being held in a restaurant or concert hall without weapons and knowing that any police immediately on the scene will have no firearms?

    The population of France and is nothing but a big fat soft target for people like this. A legally armed population changes the whole dynamic. If you can’t see this, you’re blind.

  18. I think a three volume work called ‘Is God Really Someone Else?’ would interest very few people in the world who don’t post here or at UD, BWTHDIK?

  19. William J. Murray: A legally armed population changes the whole dynamic. If you can’t see this, you’re blind.

    I can see this.

    I don’t like what I see. I will happily stick with our European laws on gun control and our low murder rates.

  20. newton: What exactly is a universal being if not a universal someone?

    What exactly is life if not a particular living organism?

  21. Elizabeth: I can see this.

    I don’t like what I see.I will happily stick with our European laws on gun control and our low murder rates.

    Well, you’re about to find out real quick where that leads.

  22. Elizabeth: I don’t like what I see.I will happily stick with our European laws on gun control and our low murder rates.

    Europe’s homicide rate is about 3X that of well-armed states in the USA. So, the real question is, if the data indicates that a legally-armed populace is shown to reduce murder and violent crime rates, and disarming them increases the murder and violent crime rates, why would you be against legally arming the populace?

  25. wjm

    Not bad for a state with some of the least strict gun laws in the nation – and Japan has a phenomenally low murder rate compared to the rest of the world.

    Studies continue to confirm that states with the most restrictive gun laws and fewer armed citizens have lower gun violence rates. Data from 2013 indicates that NH has 9.4 gun-related deaths per 100K persons and Hi (a state with the most restrictive gun laws have 2.4 gun-related deaths per 100K persons.

    here is a compilation of gun-related deaths versus gun laws on a state by state ranking. The data are quite clear in this regard.

    https://img.njdc.com/media/media/2015/09/01/wholechart.png

  27. I just checked some data from Wikipedia and did a correlation which was slightly positive (gun ownership by state; homicide rate by state). But one should probably put some other variables in the model, such as population density. As cities tend to have higher homicide rates, rural areas more guns per capita that would probably push the correlation higher.

    On nationwide states, both gun ownership and homicide rates are higher in the US than in the UK and France. Homicide rates are 4 to 5 times higher, and the gun ownership rate is about 4 times higher.

  28. BK said:

    Studies continue to confirm that states with the most restrictive gun laws and fewer armed citizens have lower gun violence rates.

    Straw man. I never said anything about “gun related deaths” or “gun related violence”.

    The problem is that you have designed your empty “rebuttal” in a false and misleading manner much like the “progressive” sources you refer to. Of course there are fewer gun-related deaths and gun-related violent crime in gun-free areas because you have dramatically decreased the number of guns in the area. But that doesn’t mean you have deterred murder or violent crimes. That would be an unwarranted conclusion.

    If you outlaw guns and the gun-related-death rate goes down, but the murder and violent crime rate goes up, what does that tell you? It probably means that there are fewer citizens defending themselves and their family with a legally owned gun, and it probably means that women are more at risk because they cannot carry a gun or keep one in their home for protection.

    This is why referring to “gun-related” deaths and “gun-related” violent crime rates is a biased, manipulative method of considering the actual impact of removing legally owned and licensed guns from the population.

    Not all “gun-related deaths” are a bad thing if they include people successfully defending themselves against violent crimes.

  29. hotshoe_: So you’re implying that the majority of christians are such incorrigible assholes that we can’t teach them manners and they can’t behave themselves unless we make actual laws against their bad behavior?

    I not Implying I’m flat out saying that discussing religion in public is not bad manners. It’s often the best thing that can happen to a society,

    I would say that a contributing factor in terror attacks is the lack of dialog between Jihadist Muslims and those who would question their worldview from a theological angle.

    When you are convinced that the world is split into two camps the Ummah and the Dar al-Harb and that the way the Ummah expands is through Jihad is not all that surprising that a Jihad will break out from time to time.

    The only way to counteract that sort of belief is through vigorous theological dialog between folks from very different faith traditions . The only place that sort of thing can happen is in the public square.

    Stifle that sort of discussion and it will come back to bite you IMO

    peace

  30. walto: I don’t really understand your first question (I take the “tenets of atheism” to be entirely constituted by either not believing in God or believing that there is no God–depending on how one understands the term)

    Do you think these tenets could have an effect on ones behavior in your opinion? Is such a thing even possible?

    peace

  31. William J. Murray: If you outlaw guns and the gun-related-death rate goes down, but the murder and violent crime rate goes up, what does that tell you? It probably means that there are fewer citizens defending themselves and their family with a legally owned gun, and it probably means that women are more at risk because they cannot carry a gun or keep one in their home for protection.

    Could be many other reasons too, no? That explanation seems like a stretch to me.

  32. EL said:

    On nationwide states, both gun ownership and homicide rates are higher in the US than in the UK and France. Homicide rates are 4 to 5 times higher, and the gun ownership rate is about 4 times higher.

    Unlike the UK or France, the USA is not governed by a single set of gun laws; they vary widely from state to state. As I’ve pointed out and linked to, the states with the highest murder and violent crime rates are those with the most restrictive gun laws and licensing; the states with the lowest crime rates are those with the least restrictive gun laws and licensing. As more and more states have adopted easier licensing and concealed/open carry, the murder/violent crime rate has gone down.

    The facts are the facts. I’ve already pointed this out. Your refusal to take this into account leads me to think you’re simply anti-gun, regardless of the actual data and consequences.

  34. walto: Could be many other reasons too, no? That explanation seems like a stretch to me.

    It probably seems like a stretch to you because the mainstream media do not wish to portray gun ownership and concealed/open carry in a positive light. Pretty much everyone I know and am related to has either stopped a crime from occurring or have forced the culprit to lie flat and wait for police to arrive because we own guns.

    http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

    Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. – Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

    As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse – Kleck and Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime,” at 185.

    States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; [10] and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly. – Lott and Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.”

    Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission… without paying a fee… or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union — having three times received the “Safest State Award.

    Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida’s concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. [13] FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period — thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.

    3/5 of felons polled agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.” – U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report (July 1985): 27.

    Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

    Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.

    These facts are not even controversial. The real question is, why is the media lying to us about the real consequences of legal gun ownership and concealed/open carry?

  35. walto: Sure, why not?

    So you would agree that prohibiting religious instruction is consistent with the tenets of atheism. Correct?

    now check this out

    quote:

    …The God of Peace, the God of Truth will shortly seal this truth, and confirm this witness, and make it evident to the whole world, that the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is most evidently and lamentably contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus the Prince of Peace.

    end quote:

    Roger WIlliams 1644

    http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/williams/btp.htm

    peace

  36. William J. Murray: Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. – Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

    “Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

    – Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084

    DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually.
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

    As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: “Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes–including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent–contribute to victims’ injury outcomes.”

    What is also interesting is that the study notes that “In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms.” Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters.

    According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: “From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents.” It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

  37. Reciprocating Bill: I can personally testify to the fact that each and every time BarryA attributed a school shooting or similar event to the advocacy of Darwinism, Mung was in the forefront of those challenging him.

    Thank you. That’s perhaps the nicest thing you’ve ever said about me.

  39. “Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

    You didn’t even notice the bait and switch in your own quote; they switched from talking about murder to a study of homicide. Murder is not the same thing as homicide. There is such a thing as a legal or justifiable homicide, such as in the defense of one’s life, especially in one’s home. I’m sure there is an increased risk of homicide, and not murder, when there are guns in more homes being used to protect life and property.

  40. Mung: Thank you. That’s perhaps the nicest thing you’ve ever said about me.

    Hate to disappoint, but I was being facetious.

    I don’t recall you ever raising an objection to Barry similar to that you raise to Walto’s post. (But perhaps your ‘thank you’ is facetious too.)

  41. Elizabeth: As far as we know, the attacks were carried out by a group of non-atheists whose declared intention of ridding the world of people who do not believe their particular form of theism.

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the people who committed this act of terrorism are radical Muslims. Even if true, Islam has never been about eradicating “people who do not believe their particular form of theism.” That’s just ignorant atheist talk. They do, however, eradicate atheists. And you are vastly outnumbered.

    As with so many other things in modern society, you might acknowledge your debt to the other religious faiths that grant you your life and freedom. If you want to be an atheist, at least be a grateful atheist.

  42. Mung: Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the people who committed this act of terrorism are radical Muslims. Even if true, Islam has never been about eradicating “people who do not believe their particular form of theism.” That’s just ignorant atheist talk. They do, however, eradicate atheists. And you are vastly outnumbered.

    As with so many other things in modern society, you might acknowledge your debt to the other religious faiths that grant you your life and freedom. If you want to be an atheist, at least be a grateful atheist.

    We’re supposed to be grateful that you don’t kill us?

    That bar seems a tad low.

    Glen Davidson

  43. William J. Murray: How am I supposed to answer questions about the bible when I’ve never read it, and am not even a Christian? Why even ask me about the bible?

    Let me try one. What color is the bible?

    Let’s try a multiple choice. Who wrote the bible?

    a. Moses
    b. Jesus
    c. Gideon
    d. Joseph Smith

  45. newton: “Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

    Sure, or an increased risk of homicide perhaps increased the chance of gun ownership. Wouldn’t be surprising, after all.

    Glen Davidson

  46. Elizabeth: And what is “objective” about your choice of God?

    If there is but one God, what does it mean to say there is a “choice” among gods?

    There’s only one. That’s about as objective as you can get.

  48. hotshoe_: Militant Islamists targeted the original “desert rock” band Tinariwen – Tuareg persons from Mali playing traditional tunes with electric guitars…

    Wow. Shades of Bob Dylan.

    😉

  49. hotshoe_: So you’re implying that the majority of christians are such incorrigible assholes that we can’t teach them manners and they can’t behave themselves unless we make actual laws against their bad behavior?

    Well, that would just be for starters. Got to keep it from spreading too.

    😀

  50. walto: FWIW, I tried to compose a post on this ‘semantic nitpicking ‘ issue, but found it so difficult to describe the ridiculousness and triviality of trying to determine what constitutes semantic nitpicking that I had to admit defeat and give up.

    Let’s talk about what is meant by denialism. 😉

Comments are closed.