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. DNA_Jock: . A self-published methodology-free polemic is going to lack the caveats that are found in a responsible publication.

    Well William, I’ll quote a wise man:

    William J. Murray: Wow, that kind of backfired on you, didn’t it?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

    In response to the dispute surrounding the missing survey, Lott created and used “Mary Rosh” as a sock puppet to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Mary Rosh persona.[61] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself “the best professor I ever had”.

    I can see why you are a fan William.

  2. GlenDavidson: but somehow for around 1500 years no one really noticed that the Bible (NT anyway) favored religious freedom.

    My spiritual forefathers were taking about the separation of Church and state and freedom of religion as far back Tertullian in the second century. That you don’t know this is telling.

    The reason that you don’t hear a lot about those folks is because then as now they are always a little flock almost never in the seats of power.

    That is by design

    peace

  3. Neil Rickert: Completely and totally irrelevant to the point that walto was arguing.

    Perhaps but he chose to make his point in the context of horrific terrorist attacks of yesterday.

    If you choose to make some point about persecution of atheists in such a totality unrelated context is it any surprise that folks might object a little?

    peace

  4. GlenDavidson: fifthmonarchyman: If the atheist expressed views that are popular in the USA and did it in a non condescending way I would expect the odds are pretty good.

    I don’t think that combination is very likely

    peace

    So you think that other people might not be biased, while your “assessment” of atheists in the very same comment is wholly biased.

    Well said.

  5. fifthmonarchyman: Perhaps but he chose to make his point in the context of horrific terrorist attacks of yesterday.

    If you choose to make some point about persecution of atheists in such a totality unrelated context is it any surprise that folks might object a little?

    peace

    Poor Anabaptists. Whenever there’s a crime, they’re the first ones to be suspected of it. We all really need to be more sensitive to the feelings of Anabaptists when 150 people in France get slaughtered by OTHER kinds of theists in the name of other (bad) theistic beliefs.

  6. Alan Fox: So did moderate Catholics provide cover for IRA terrorists? Most certainly in differing degrees. Did moderate Protestants provide cover for Ulster loyalist terrorists? Undoubtedly in differing degrees.

    Perhaps the issue is not moderate verses radical but peaceful verses not peaceful and spiritual verses carnal?

    quote:

    For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
    (2Co 10:3-5)

    end quote:

  8. fifthmonarchyman: My spiritual forefathers were taking about the separation of Church and state and freedom of religion as far back Tertullian in the second century. That you don’t know this is telling.

    That you provide no evidence for this flimsy and questionable claim is telling.

    And what is “talking about” separation of church and state supposed to mean?

    By the way, earlier you wrote:

    Claiming that Williams was subconsciously influenced by ideas that did not exist at the time and that he would of found to be abhorrent instead of the ideas that he explicitly referenced in his argument requires a little evidence

    Ideas that did not exist at that time. Now you’re saying that the essence of those ideas existed since your supposed “spiritual forefathers” back to the time of Tertullian. Which one was the lie? Skip the sickening weaseling for once, if you can.

    The reason that you don’t hear a lot about those folks is because then as now they are always a little flock almost never in the seats of power.

    Probably mostly because they had unbelievable spokespeople such as yourself, at least whenever they really existed.

    That is by design

    Well, what isn’t in your delusional worldview?

    Glen Davidson

  9. Alan Fox: My Belfast friends recalled the “troubles” and how involvement in terrorism is not a black and white issue but rather a sliding scale and dictated by peer pressure.

    So did moderate Catholics provide cover for IRA terrorists? Most certainly in differing degrees. Did moderate Protestants provide cover for Ulster loyalist terrorists? Undoubtedly in differing degrees.

    This is a very important point.
    Having experienced the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign, I continue to be saddened by the ignorance displayed by many Americans re the post-war history of terrorism.
    As an aside:

    Some time after 9/11, a letter writer to a major metropolitan newspaper opined that the reason Europeans were somewhat reluctant to get on board George Bush Sr’s “bomb the towel-heads to Kingdom Come” strategy was because they were jealous that they were late arrivals to the “War on Terrorism”.
    My response was published, pointing out that Europeans had been fighting terrorism for decades, some of it funded by the USA. It probably didn’t help matters that I referenced the old joke about showing up two years late for both World Wars…
    As a result, my wife got stuck fielding irate (and I mean threatening, spittle-infused irate) phone calls to our home phone.
    She was not at all happy with me.

    I remain convinced (and I believe that the Americans who have actually thought about counter-terrorism (e.g. Petraeus) seem to get this) that the key to fighting terrorists is a hearts-and-minds campaign that converts the active supporters (suppliers of funds and logistical support) into passive supporters (people who look the other way), and converts the passive supporters into people who will ‘drop a dime’. Only then does killing the terrorists themselves (or better yet, imprisoning them) yield dividends.

  10. GlenDavidson: Ideas that did not exist at that time. Now you’re saying that the essence of those ideas existed since your supposed “spiritual forefathers” back to the time of Tertullian.

    Enlightenment ideas did not exist before the Enlightenment. Christian Ideas on the other hand existed since the time of Christ

    peace

  11. I’m not going to get into the whole gun control matter (on the one hand, many of Williams’ numbers are at best questionable, while pretending that the general absence of guns in Europe is to be all that is credited for lower European crime rates, when there is a whole slew of reasons for the disparity, also gets us nowhere–and it’s all too much to get into seriously), but this matters to me:

    Gun ownership increased from the 1960’s through the 1980’s,
    especially handgun ownership. Some of the increase was due to the
    formation of new households and to growing affluence enabling gun
    owners to acquire still more guns; however, a substantial share of
    the increase was also a response to rising crime rates among people
    who previously did not own guns. Most handguns are owned for
    defensive reasons, and many people get guns in response to high or
    rising crime rates. Therefore, part of the positive association
    sometimes observed between gun ownership levels and crime rates is
    due to the effect of the latter on the former, rather than the
    reverse. Nevertheless, most guns, especially long guns, are owned
    primarily for recreational reasons unconnected with crime.

    http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/kdowst/kleck.html

    From what looks like a respectable study of gun control.

    That people buy guns because they’re frightened is certainly a fact in the USA.

    Glen Davidson

  13. DNA_Jock: I remain convinced (and I believe that the Americans who have actually thought about counter-terrorism (e.g. Petraeus) seem to get this) that the key to fighting terrorists is a hearts-and-minds campaign that converts the active supporters (suppliers of funds and logistical support) into passive supporters (people who look the other way), and converts the passive supporters into people who will ‘drop a dime’. Only then does killing the terrorists themselves (or better yet, imprisoning them) yield dividends.

    I think what we need is a hearts and minds campaign that converts violent followers of Muhammad into peaceful followers of Christ.

    There is an app for that 😉

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Jerusalem_movement

    peace

  15. keiths:

    Who created humans, in your view? It wasn’t you, and it wasn’t me — it was someone else, a purposeful being with its own mind.

    William:

    But it was you and me, Keiths – and everyone else, and everything else, as aspects of God, that created all of this.

    Your position is incoherent, William.

    You said that God — a purposeful being with a mind — created humans for his own purposes. Now you are saying that we, as aspects of God, created “all of this”, including ourselves. That makes no sense.

    We didn’t exist prior to our creation, William. But Someone Else did, according to you. That Someone Else, who had his own mind and his own purposes, created us.

  16. fifthmonarchyman: If you choose to make some point about persecution of atheists in such a totality unrelated context is it any surprise that folks might object a little?

    Yes, of course it’s no surprise, because we can always trust theists like you to attempt to make it all about your hurt feelings and your paranoia of (non-existent) anti-christian persecution, whenever anyone says anything in the slightest bit negative about theism. That you’re sadly predictable doesn’t make you right.

  17. fifthmonarchyman: Perhaps the issue is not moderate verses radical but peaceful verses not peaceful and spiritual verses carnal?

    quote:

    For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
    (2Co 10:3-5)

    end quote:

    Ahh, thank you for reverting to your formerly-typical rude behavior of puking out bible verses where they’re not wanted.

    I was beginning to think you had reformed.

    Good to know that the skunk can’t change its stripes after all.

  19. Must admit I thoroughly enjoyed the demolition in Australia, the ‘greatest upset in UFC history’ by Christian fighter Holly Holm over atheist asshole primadonna Ronda Rousey.

    “Fake ass cheap shotting fake respect fake humility bitch – ‘preacher’s daughter’ my ass – I see through your fake sweet act now – you’re getting your ass kicked tomorrow, and I’m really going to enjoy the beating I give you #andSTILL” – Rousey (after weigh-in, day before the contest)

    Fake, fake, fake, fake?! Guess who got her mouth shut by grace and power?

    And so it was Holm who looked on with genuine concern kneeling over the health of the badly damaged (as a person, in her life) & possibly concussed woman she had just convincingly demolished. This was done, folks, *before* she celebrated her well-earned victory with the crowd, her family, trainers, etc. ‘Respect’ for one’s opponents, which too often is not displayed at sites like this one.

    “So much love” is how Holm acknowledged her team. This compares with Rousey’s arrogant, selfish, hate and pride-filled entourage & lack of respect for her opponent. It might be due, at least partially, to how deep the father’s love for us reigns in Holm’s life compared to the paternal suicide and physical abuse in Rousey’s life.

    http://www.abqjournal.com/673807/sports/the-preacher-is-behind-holly.html

    So, was the humility fake? Actually, Holm *is* a preacher’s daughter. If she evidentially *is* then she *is*. That Rousey ‘trash talk’ would thus technically violate Lizzie’s ‘good faith’ rules, which many atheists here don’t ultimately respect or have the will to uphold (e.g. ‘hotshoe’, who openly acknowledges she is a mean pathetic human being). So, Lizzie’s only-atheist filters (cough, ‘admins’) would just let it slip.

    Many atheists I meet in real life are decent people. This is a social topic, not merely an internet blog observation. It is the ‘militant’ or ‘angry’ atheists that reflect so badly on what Lizzie calls ‘humanism’ (though she seems oblivious to ‘religious humanism’ and ‘Catholic humanism’ in particular). Sadly, it is mainly angry and militant atheists here, largely ignorant of religion, humility or grace in their own lives, who appear to be the lot that has gravitated to Lizzie’s TAMSZ. And that’s on Lizzie herself.

    Rousey will nurse her wounds, as humility triumphed over assholish atheist pride, for Holm to become the new champion. Amen.

  20. And luckily, just ‘luckily’ folks, Alan Fox, big-hearted ‘admin’ & ‘just’ human being, won’t Guano that post because ‘asshole’ is already a protected word at TAMSZ, while ‘moron’ is banned. 😉

  21. Oh, Gregory, stop making stuff up.

    In any case, this is noyau. You are free to say what you like here, apart from outing/porn/malware whatever.

    But as it IS noyau, can I ask you: what is it that upsets you so much about people who don’t believe in god or goods? Are you as upset about people who believe in different a god or gods from the one you believe in?

  23. Just wanted to saythat I don’t think this remark of Adapa’s should have been guanoed:

    Oh goody, now Mung is going to equivocate over the definition of “process”. Maybe we’ll hear how the process of erosion that allows rivers to carve incised meanders is really directed by the Meander Fairy.

    It seems to me to make a legitmate point about the meaning of the word ‘process’ and how playing around with it can mislead or be used to mislead.

  24. I like the word “asshole” as an insult because it’s not a slur towards any dis-empowered group. Everyone’s got one; it’s equal-opportunity epithet. It’s humane, doesn’t pin a low-IQ score or a figurative pink triangle on anyone’s jacket, doesn’t imply you’re lower than others merely because of your birth characteristics which you couldn’t choose. Anyone and everyone is capable of asshole behavior sometimes, but mostly the ones who deserve being called out for it are the ones who make a career of it.

    Although even then, when I use it, I remind myself to focus on the asshole words/behavior, not on the person himself/herself as an exemplar of “asshole”.

    Not surprised that Gregory objects so strenuously to usage of insulting words, such as “asshole”, which don’t allow him to fortify his own belief that he’s at the top of the human food chain. Not surprised he objects to being deprived of using “moron” as an insult.

  25. walto: That’s good advice. Will you take it yourself, or have you already decided on this matter–as several dozen posts of yours on this very thread strongly suggest?

    My pro-RTO/RTC position isn’t based on whether or not the murder/crime rates go up or down; it’s based entirely on my view that I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones **and** I have the right to be armed in order to deter government tyranny.

    Alan said:

    It’s misogyny to not want a gun in the house?

    No, it’s misogyny to deny women the right to carry weapons to defend themselves.

  27. William J. Murray: No, it’s misogyny to deny women the right to carry weapons to defend themselves.

    No, it would be misogyny if the reason you denied women the right to carry was because they are women.

  28. “Oh, Gregory, stop making stuff up.” – Lizzie

    Oh, isn’t that a ‘good faith’ violation by Lizzie herself? This site is a very low ethics one, to be sure.

    So you were watching UFC 193 live too, Lizzie (about 06:00am UK time)? And you saw something different than I and the rest of the millions of viewers did? Do tell.

  29. William J. Murray: ; it’s based entirely on my view that I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones **and** I have the right to be armed in order to deter government tyranny.

    Red Dawn syndrome.

  30. William J. Murray: My pro-RTO/RTC position isn’t based on whether or not the murder/crime rates go up or down; it’s based entirely on my view that I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones **and** I have the right to be armed in order to deter government tyranny.

    Carrying a gun will not help you against the army of a present day tyrannical government. And you could protect your family with a frying pan–if you lived someplace where a zillion people didn’t have guns. Whether they actually help you in a country like ours is an empirical question and, as indicated, i’m interested in any data you may have that supports the theory that having a gun helps reduce crime.

  31. walto: Carrying a gun will not help you against the army of a present day tyrannical government.

    Well, certainly not with that attitude, anyway.

    And you could protect your family with a frying pan–if you lived someplace where a zillion people didn’t have guns.

    The first time I defended my family successfully it was against 6 young adults/teenagers. I don’t think a frying pan would have done the trick.

  32. William J. Murray: My pro-RTO/RTC position isn’t based on whether or not the murder/crime rates go up or down;…

    Regulars at TSZ are familiar with your idiosyncratic relationship with evidence, William, but here’s a tip: if you want to avoid “Erik’s Mistake”, then restrict yourself to simple “That’s what I believe” statements, and try to refrain from citing bogus data in support of your belief.

    …it’s based entirely on my view that I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones…

    Good for you. Likewise, I have the right to defend myself and my loved ones from asinine and dangerous public policies promulgated by charlatans based on bogus data. In your libertarian worldview, would I be justified in stealing your guns to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands? Oh, nevermind…

    …**and** I have the right to be armed in order to deter government tyranny.

    I’m not sorry to have to tell you that you’ve already lost this battle, mate. You can thank the Bushes for the final nails in that coffin. Or, as Allan Miller noted earlier, you could just ask a Syrian.

  33. Gregory: So you were watching UFC 193 live too, Lizzie (about 06:00am UK time)? And you saw something different than I and the rest of the millions of viewers did? Do tell.

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

  34. newton said:

    No, it would be misogyny if the reason you denied women the right to carry was because they are women.

    Like it or not, it’s a biological fact that for the most part, women are physically smaller and weaker than men. Guns equalize this imbalance of physical power. So, banning guns and RTC puts women at a factual disadvantage in society, which is misogynistic.

  35. Lovely to see so many demonstrations of solidarity from so many religious groups – muslim, jewish, christian. I’m trying to hope that perhaps this might be the event that unites people against extremism of all forms, but at least against the present outbreak.

  37. William J. Murray:
    Like it or not, it’s a biological fact that for the most part, women are physically smaller and weaker than men.Guns equalize this imbalance of physical power.So, banning guns and RTC puts women at a factual disadvantage in society, which is misogynistic.

    That’s one of the dumbest pieces of “logic” I’ve ever seen. Women who live in a household with guns are 8x more likely to die in a domestic violence incident than homes without. For every woman who shoots and kills an intimate acquaintance there are over 80 women who are shot and killed by someone they know.

    Women and Gun Violence

    Guns aren’t equalizers that make women safer. They are readily available methods of killing that put women much more at risk.

  38. William J. Murray:

    The first time I defended my family successfully it was against 6 young adults/teenagers.I don’t think a frying pan would have done the trick.

    How about some mace and/or a hand ful of pebbles? (They both really sting!)

  40. Elizabeth: I’m trying to hope that perhaps this might be the event that unites people against extremism of all forms, but at least against the present outbreak.

    If by extremism you mean violence against innocents I share your hope.

    However I’m afraid that you might mean “excess” piety. I hope that is not the case because I believe piety in the right sense is the only way to limit violence against innocents over the long hall.

    In the mistaken belief that we are of addressing the root to the cause of most recent events I do hope we don’t attack the only thing keeping the chaos at bay.

    peace

  41. Adapa said:

    Women who live in a household with guns are 8x more likely to die in a domestic violence incident than homes without.

    What Adapa’s link actually says:

    Women suffering from domestic violence are eight times more likely to be killed if there are firearms in the home.

    Adapa said:

    For every woman who shoots and kills an intimate acquaintance there are over 80 women who are shot and killed by someone they know.

    As I said before, note the language and how the comparisons are worded. By a wide, wide margin (which I referred to earlier), most successful defenses against crime achieved via legally owned and permitted guns are achieved without harming anyone – brandishing the weapon or firing a warning shot is most often all that is necessary. One wonders, what is the comparison between killed women and women who used a firearm to successfully ward off an attack/rape/abuse without killing? Go back to the resources and sites I listed and find out for yourself.

    Also note, my argument is about legally owned and permitted users; the link Adapa provides doesn’t distinguish (as far as I can tell) between legally owned firearms in households and households where the firearm is not legally owned or licensed.

    Outlawing weapons and denying RTC is not going to do anything whatsoever about people who own such weapons illegally. To be relevant, any such study should focus only on what effects occur wrt legal gun owners. That’s what my resources rightfully focus on. If law-abiding gun owners are committing firearm violations less frequently than the police (which they are), then propagandized, misleading reports like Adapa and others have provided are entirely irrelevant.

    The question is not what criminals do if they own and carry illegal guns; the question is what do law-abiding citizens do when they legally purchase a gun and legally obtain right to carry licenses? The fact is that they make communities all across America safer (less murder, less violent crime).

    This is why paying attention to the words and phrases used in such reports and research is so important.

  42. walto: How about some mace and/or a hand ful of pebbles? (They both really sting!)

    Yeah. Nothing stops a bunch of criminals out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night like mace and pebbles. You guys are such fools. But, you’re about to find out. The hard way. Just like the French are finding out.

  43. fifthmonarchyman: I believe piety in the right sense is the only way to limit violence against innocents over the long hall.

    It’s obviously important to you that it not only be A way, but must be the ONLY way. That is, you require that your remark be an insult.

  44. William J. Murray: Outlawing weapons and denying RTC is not going to do anything whatsoever about people who own such weapons illegally.

    How do you suppose they get them? Hint: A major source of illegal weapons are stolen legitimately owned weapons.

    Look, your basic point is that more guns mean you are safer when of course exactly the opposite is true. You just can’t see that, you can’t see the kool aid when you’ve been swimming in it your entire life and don’t’ want to see it.

  46. William J. Murray: That’s what my resources rightfully focus on.

    Do you have any comment on the quality of those resources then, given earlier comments in the thread? Or is any research that says what you want given a free pass re: quality?

  47. William J. Murray: But, you’re about to find out. The hard way. Just like the French are finding out.

    Uh-oh. You, mung and the other theists we’re supposed to thank for letting us live are thinking of changing your minds?!? NOooooo!

  48. William J. Murray: The first time I defended my family successfully it was against 6 young adults/teenagers.

    You should have called some back up with your PSI powers, or asked the aliens who abduct you to intervene. Or you could have changed reality and believed them away, or believed a meteor into existence that would distract them long enough to get away. Or spoken to their eternal spirits in free-will-mind-world and convinced them not to attack you.

    You’d think the last thing a master of all planes of existence would need to defend their family would be a gun, with so many other tools at Williams disposal I guess he let them off lightly just by waving a gun at them…

Comments are closed.