As the number 5 story of The Onion's "Top 10 stories of the last 4.5 billion years.
It must have been terribly confusing to hear God speak everything into existence when it was already there.
But while you laugh, remember that there are people out there who believe that God did create the universe at that time. And then laugh even more.
Thursday, 17 December 2009
More on the Australian Internet Filter
This is some more information that I've managed to find, continuing on from yesterday's post. The move is becoming controversial and it looks like news bodies outside of Australia are starting to take notice. Google News already has a list of articles, some of which are from Australia and some are foreign which talk about this.
Google joins the anti-filter side
The Official Google Australia Blog has a post on their views of the filter.
Google has joined the list of groups that don't like the filter. Remember that groups that oppose the filter aren't just groups like the EFA but also groups like Save the Children. As well as essentially all the ISPs in the country.
They link to an interesting report from professors Catharine Lumby, Leila Green and John Hartley titled Untangling the Net: The Scope of Content Caught by Mandatory Internet Filtering, but more on that later.
They do make a good point in one case though, their SafeSearch allows the search engine to filter out unsavoury content. It must work quite well because Cracked have an article that uses the filter (for porn, so I guess that even though it's censored it will be blocked if the filter goes through.
There is one thing that they add though, Germany has a filter but it only filters child porn. Not potentially most of the internet.
Part of the issue, as I said yesterday, is that it's not just the Government's job to protect people on the Internet, it's also the role of parents to be vigilant and to teach their kids about internet safety. It appears that many, if not most Australians understand this, but some groups don't.
They also add that controversial topics should not be censored because it stifles discussion. This is correct. But most people will agree that it's quite fine to censor child porn because it's one issue that is believed to be wrong by most people regardless of their views on other things.
However stifling discussion is not a valid proposal.
The Filter and Euthanasia
This article was on the ABC today. Apparently the filter will restrict information about euthanasia.
Now it is clear that euthanasia is a touchy issue in society. However this is one of the issues that should not be censored.
Dr. Phillip Nitschke, a prominent voluntary euthanasia advocate has some of his websites listed on the ACMA blacklist.
Michael Duffy reported on the adding of Nitschke's work to the blacklist back in May. And if you search for the website for the online version of his book The Peaceful Pill Handbook on the Wikileaks copy of the blacklist you will find it there (just search for "peacefulpillhandbook.com") right below partypoker.
But this is not the only issue where we see information being censored.
The Report
We now turn back to the report that I mentioned earlier (link to article here).
The key findings are listed on page ii.
Overall the conclusion is that there shouldn't be a filter. Especially based on Australian law and the scope of the blacklists. It also states that it may lull people into a false sense of security.
One of the interesting things that they found was that only 32% of the blacklisted stuff was child pornography. Some of this content that has been prohibited falls under R18+ and X18+ classifications from the Office of Film and Literature Classification and are technically permitted as long as they are not sold to people under 18.
Yet it states that at present there is a strange contradiction in that under voluntary filtering X18+ is prohibited (so for internet purposes it's Refused Classification).
Strange huh? You can buy porn from stores in the ACT, or over the phone, but you're not allowed to do it over the internet.
But it lists various other hypothetical websites that could be considered RC based on their content including a website for LGBT people to discuss their sexuality, or a literary website. Which just goes to show that the classification system has the potential to paint most of the internet as RC, and therefore fair game for any filter.
Other potential issues include transparency, the article suggests some form of judicial review on blacklisted sites. But also whether we should be allowed to know what is on the blacklist. And also a section on balancing the filter, what happens if we over or under filter.
At present though we have to wait until Labor draft some legislation to see how some of these issues are sorted out.
Google joins the anti-filter side
The Official Google Australia Blog has a post on their views of the filter.
Google has joined the list of groups that don't like the filter. Remember that groups that oppose the filter aren't just groups like the EFA but also groups like Save the Children. As well as essentially all the ISPs in the country.
They link to an interesting report from professors Catharine Lumby, Leila Green and John Hartley titled Untangling the Net: The Scope of Content Caught by Mandatory Internet Filtering, but more on that later.
They do make a good point in one case though, their SafeSearch allows the search engine to filter out unsavoury content. It must work quite well because Cracked have an article that uses the filter (for porn, so I guess that even though it's censored it will be blocked if the filter goes through.
There is one thing that they add though, Germany has a filter but it only filters child porn. Not potentially most of the internet.
Part of the issue, as I said yesterday, is that it's not just the Government's job to protect people on the Internet, it's also the role of parents to be vigilant and to teach their kids about internet safety. It appears that many, if not most Australians understand this, but some groups don't.
They also add that controversial topics should not be censored because it stifles discussion. This is correct. But most people will agree that it's quite fine to censor child porn because it's one issue that is believed to be wrong by most people regardless of their views on other things.
However stifling discussion is not a valid proposal.
The Filter and Euthanasia
This article was on the ABC today. Apparently the filter will restrict information about euthanasia.
Now it is clear that euthanasia is a touchy issue in society. However this is one of the issues that should not be censored.
Dr. Phillip Nitschke, a prominent voluntary euthanasia advocate has some of his websites listed on the ACMA blacklist.
Michael Duffy reported on the adding of Nitschke's work to the blacklist back in May. And if you search for the website for the online version of his book The Peaceful Pill Handbook on the Wikileaks copy of the blacklist you will find it there (just search for "peacefulpillhandbook.com") right below partypoker.
But this is not the only issue where we see information being censored.
The Report
We now turn back to the report that I mentioned earlier (link to article here).
The key findings are listed on page ii.
Overall the conclusion is that there shouldn't be a filter. Especially based on Australian law and the scope of the blacklists. It also states that it may lull people into a false sense of security.
One of the interesting things that they found was that only 32% of the blacklisted stuff was child pornography. Some of this content that has been prohibited falls under R18+ and X18+ classifications from the Office of Film and Literature Classification and are technically permitted as long as they are not sold to people under 18.
Yet it states that at present there is a strange contradiction in that under voluntary filtering X18+ is prohibited (so for internet purposes it's Refused Classification).
Strange huh? You can buy porn from stores in the ACT, or over the phone, but you're not allowed to do it over the internet.
But it lists various other hypothetical websites that could be considered RC based on their content including a website for LGBT people to discuss their sexuality, or a literary website. Which just goes to show that the classification system has the potential to paint most of the internet as RC, and therefore fair game for any filter.
Other potential issues include transparency, the article suggests some form of judicial review on blacklisted sites. But also whether we should be allowed to know what is on the blacklist. And also a section on balancing the filter, what happens if we over or under filter.
At present though we have to wait until Labor draft some legislation to see how some of these issues are sorted out.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Wanted, Reliable Proxies. Apply in Australia.
The government has given the go ahead for an internet filter. This has been an issue since the previous government but the measures were not so drastic. At present we are looking at the possibility of adults being prevented from looking at legal websites as they are advertently and inadvertently blocked, or a massive throttling of broadband speeds from either active or passive filtering. Something that goes against the Federal Government's attempt to provide Australians with faster internet. It also may see websites blocked by groups who wish to censor content for certain arguments, violating ideals that Australians believe in.
Electronic Frontiers Australia has a site on the feed.
The October Report: What may be censored
Part of it has to do with the content that is filtered.
The recent October report from the government about the filter states that Enex (which I believe is the company that did the test) used the ACMA (the Australian Communication and Media Authority) blacklist.
Wikileaks managed to obtain a copy of the blacklist, I'm using the most recent one that I could find, dated 18 March 2009.
Now some of the sites listed I can understand. They are sites that clearly violate laws in this country with content such as child porn. That's fair, and I think many people would agree with that.
But other websites are on there as well. Wikileaks itself is on the list, after ACMA added their page on Denmak's Internet Black List. As are three youtube links, a page from the Zombie Survival Wiki on tips and tricks, and three pages from Encyclopedia Dramatica (Offended, Kittens and something called "snapesnogger". I don't read ED, so I don't know) and a couple of pages from Wikipedia. There may be some legitimate, legal porn sites on there too, but I'm afraid to check because some of the URLs don't really make themselves clear.
The report continues to tell us on page 15:
I guess this will bring about a censorship of the news though. Many news sites have been using some of the things in that list to get more people to click on links.
Connection Throttling And the Filters: The ACMA Report
Will the filter (or filters) chosen throttle connections. This is also based on how well they block since this variable will weigh more heavily on the Government's choice of filter then speed. Looking at this report from ACMA gives us individual results in Appendix F and grouped results on other pages.
The report itself gives graphs showing that over between 2005 - 2008 the abilities of ISP filters has improved. Except in performance, where we see on page 5 that in the three years between tests that the range has increased dramatically.
Moving on to Appendix F, which is a breakdown of the filters. We can see that some of the filters were pretty good in a passive mode, but in an active mode filters like Alpha and Gamma would throttle a connection. Theta was a major exception, throttling when it was passively filtering.
We don't know how much any of these filters cost, but it would be terrible if either of these were the cheapest. (Personally I think that the Delta filter is the best to choose in terms of active filtering.) Knowing the Australian Government they are going to choose the cheapest because if there is one problem that Governments in Australia have it's that they think in the short term, not the long term.
If we find that Alpha or Gamma are chosen then the Government will have a lot of pressure when it comes to who is next on the list for the National Broadband Network (incidentally, Tasmania was first and they are already in stage 2. It also makes it completely pointless. Part of the idea was to make Australia more attractive to businesses. Being told that they might have to use internet with a filter that would throttle speeds by 80% is not attractive at all.
At present the issue would be moot in a place like Tasmania, which will have had the broadband upgrades completely finished by July next year, but would affect the other states that have not, which for some people would be "welcome to broadband, just as fast as dial-up."
Ramifications of Blacklists and Censorship
Websites will need to be identified before they are blocked. A complaint will need to be lodged with ACMA and they will do something and the website may be put on the list. (As I understand it's Phase 1. Collect Websites. Phase 2. ? Phase 3. Blacklist). It was found on the Wikileaks blacklist that a website of a dentist was on the blacklist.
As noted in the Sydney Morning Herald article just linked, being blacklisted gives the impression that your website hosts content that is very unsavoury. If the filter was in effect and a page appeared to notify you that the page you are viewing is blacklisted then what will you think?
Without proper oversight, which also includes ACMA actually checking the websites to make sure that they complaint is valid, the ACMA blacklist may end up being like the Hollywood Blacklist of 1950's America, you're on the list you're guilty, even if you aren't. Will there be methods available to stop the abuse of such a blacklist?
This raises issues regarding how extensive the blacklist will be. Will all pages of a website be blocked? Or will each individual sub-page be blocked depending on the content?
If it is the former then there are further ramifications that may actually infringe on the few constitutional rights that we have as well as other legal avenues that may arise through being thought of as guilty by association.
As there are a couple of Wikipedia pages on the ACMA blacklist, will that affect access to Wikipedia in general?
Do People Want A Filter?
In most cases it appears to be a no. According to the Sydney Morning Herald back in February 26 stated that a Galaxy poll conducted around that time found that only 5% of people (of 1100) wanted the ISP to filter, and 4% wanted the Government to do it.
In another poll of 10 000 Netspace customers 61% of people opposed such a move.
It isn't just opinion polls of random Australians that show this. The ABC reported back in July that the organisation Save the Children have stated that the filter won't protect children and it won't stop child porn from being leaked around the internet.
And today we see that The Greens have also opposed such a move, joining numerous other groups, like the EFA (linked to at the start of this post), GetUp!, the Australian Sex Party (who state the filter 95% of all porn sites which, in terms of the popular view of the internet is most of it.) and other groups who consider it to be a waste.
Groups that will support such a measure are primarily religious. And this is an important point to be made.
Potential Legislation and the Senate
According to Opposition Senator Nick Minchin (Liberal Party) legislation will be required for Australia to undertake such a task. I assume that has more to do with punishments for circumventing the filter and issues regarding defamation from being added to the blacklist for no good reason rather the censorship.
The reason I say that is because in terms of free speech Australia is a country where it is enshrined as an ideal, not a political reality. We have no right to free speech, the closest we have is that you aren't allowed to censor political communication.
This aside if legislation is required then the odds are that it will easily pass the Lower House based on numbers and the party line being enforced. The real fight will be in the Senate. The passing or defeat of this bill relies on a majority in the Senate, and it looks like Labor will need to woo many people into joining them.
In October of 2008 it was reported that Steve Fielding would support the filter if it would block all porn, and Nick Xenophon would try to use the bill to block foreign gambling sites (following his platform of "no pokies").
At present however only one of these two key members of the Senate support the filter. That member is Steve Fielding, the Family First Party.
For those that don't know, Family First are essentially the religious party in Australian Politics and they hold one of the two important positions in the Senate.
Nick Xenophon is the sole independent senator in the Senate, and a senator from my home state of South Australia. In a Q&A with ARN in November of this year, Xenophon has stated that he does not support the mandatory filtering of the internet.
Essentially at present the Senate would be hostile to filtering legislation. With the Coalition, the Greens and Xenophon voting no, and all along party lines, then the Senate would be hostile to any filtering legislation. It is quite possible that it will fail in the Senate.
I would question whether Tony Abbott, the Liberal leader and devout Christian, would pressure the Senate Liberals into voting for the bill, but I suspect that even he sees that it would cause him to lose leadership as it would probably fragment the party even more.
This issue will not go away however, but if the mandatory filtering does manage to pass through Parliament, or is implemented in another way, it will most likely become an election issue at the next election.
We may see either a change of government or a radical change in the political makeup of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Conclusions
What should be concluded from this? Well firstly it's that we do need proper protections of our rights. It is not good enough to see them as ideals that are culturally engrained, because it allows for abuses of power. This is part of the issue here. Will we see the abuse of power from minorities who don't want people to have access to certain information because they don't agree with it?
Will we see proper oversight of the ACMA blacklist, and if other, foreign, blacklists are used (like say the UK's Internet Watch Foundation blacklist) what chances of recourse will we have if they blacklist a site?
And do we need filtered internet? In terms of protecting children it seems that most Australians feel that it should be the job of parents and not the government. Groups like Save the Children prefer proper education rather then stopping everyone from visiting certain sites. If these groups see that filtering is not the right way to go then the claim that "it's to protect the children" is more likely to be a smokescreen.
Like issues regarding the media part of the onus is on the viewer. If you don't like what it is that you are watching/listening to/reading then you should stop. Change the channel or radio station, turn the page or close the tab. Don't try to force your morality on other people, which appears to be part of the reason for this filter in the first place. Just because you don't like websites that feature legal porn does not mean that you can tell me that I can't look at that legal porn.
At present this issue is not even at a stage where you could make a bill. There are too many holes, not enough oversight and quite possibly secret blacklists. The fight may be far from over, but it's not one we can afford to lose.
Electronic Frontiers Australia has a site on the feed.
The October Report: What may be censored
Part of it has to do with the content that is filtered.
The recent October report from the government about the filter states that Enex (which I believe is the company that did the test) used the ACMA (the Australian Communication and Media Authority) blacklist.
Wikileaks managed to obtain a copy of the blacklist, I'm using the most recent one that I could find, dated 18 March 2009.
Now some of the sites listed I can understand. They are sites that clearly violate laws in this country with content such as child porn. That's fair, and I think many people would agree with that.
But other websites are on there as well. Wikileaks itself is on the list, after ACMA added their page on Denmak's Internet Black List. As are three youtube links, a page from the Zombie Survival Wiki on tips and tricks, and three pages from Encyclopedia Dramatica (Offended, Kittens and something called "snapesnogger". I don't read ED, so I don't know) and a couple of pages from Wikipedia. There may be some legitimate, legal porn sites on there too, but I'm afraid to check because some of the URLs don't really make themselves clear.
The report continues to tell us on page 15:
Inappropriate for children test listThis is the content inappropriate for children. Will homes without children be able to opt out of this? As far as I'm aware nobody will be able to opt out completely, but we would be able to opt out of this stuff.
Content on the inappropriate for children test list included:
- Gambling
- Adult
- Lingerie/Swimsuit
- Drug-advocacy
- Nudism
- Gross-content
- Profanity
- Racism/Hate
- Sex
- Terrorism/Crime
I guess this will bring about a censorship of the news though. Many news sites have been using some of the things in that list to get more people to click on links.
Connection Throttling And the Filters: The ACMA Report
Will the filter (or filters) chosen throttle connections. This is also based on how well they block since this variable will weigh more heavily on the Government's choice of filter then speed. Looking at this report from ACMA gives us individual results in Appendix F and grouped results on other pages.
The report itself gives graphs showing that over between 2005 - 2008 the abilities of ISP filters has improved. Except in performance, where we see on page 5 that in the three years between tests that the range has increased dramatically.
Moving on to Appendix F, which is a breakdown of the filters. We can see that some of the filters were pretty good in a passive mode, but in an active mode filters like Alpha and Gamma would throttle a connection. Theta was a major exception, throttling when it was passively filtering.
We don't know how much any of these filters cost, but it would be terrible if either of these were the cheapest. (Personally I think that the Delta filter is the best to choose in terms of active filtering.) Knowing the Australian Government they are going to choose the cheapest because if there is one problem that Governments in Australia have it's that they think in the short term, not the long term.
If we find that Alpha or Gamma are chosen then the Government will have a lot of pressure when it comes to who is next on the list for the National Broadband Network (incidentally, Tasmania was first and they are already in stage 2. It also makes it completely pointless. Part of the idea was to make Australia more attractive to businesses. Being told that they might have to use internet with a filter that would throttle speeds by 80% is not attractive at all.
At present the issue would be moot in a place like Tasmania, which will have had the broadband upgrades completely finished by July next year, but would affect the other states that have not, which for some people would be "welcome to broadband, just as fast as dial-up."
Ramifications of Blacklists and Censorship
Websites will need to be identified before they are blocked. A complaint will need to be lodged with ACMA and they will do something and the website may be put on the list. (As I understand it's Phase 1. Collect Websites. Phase 2. ? Phase 3. Blacklist). It was found on the Wikileaks blacklist that a website of a dentist was on the blacklist.
As noted in the Sydney Morning Herald article just linked, being blacklisted gives the impression that your website hosts content that is very unsavoury. If the filter was in effect and a page appeared to notify you that the page you are viewing is blacklisted then what will you think?
Without proper oversight, which also includes ACMA actually checking the websites to make sure that they complaint is valid, the ACMA blacklist may end up being like the Hollywood Blacklist of 1950's America, you're on the list you're guilty, even if you aren't. Will there be methods available to stop the abuse of such a blacklist?
This raises issues regarding how extensive the blacklist will be. Will all pages of a website be blocked? Or will each individual sub-page be blocked depending on the content?
If it is the former then there are further ramifications that may actually infringe on the few constitutional rights that we have as well as other legal avenues that may arise through being thought of as guilty by association.
As there are a couple of Wikipedia pages on the ACMA blacklist, will that affect access to Wikipedia in general?
Do People Want A Filter?
In most cases it appears to be a no. According to the Sydney Morning Herald back in February 26 stated that a Galaxy poll conducted around that time found that only 5% of people (of 1100) wanted the ISP to filter, and 4% wanted the Government to do it.
In another poll of 10 000 Netspace customers 61% of people opposed such a move.
It isn't just opinion polls of random Australians that show this. The ABC reported back in July that the organisation Save the Children have stated that the filter won't protect children and it won't stop child porn from being leaked around the internet.
And today we see that The Greens have also opposed such a move, joining numerous other groups, like the EFA (linked to at the start of this post), GetUp!, the Australian Sex Party (who state the filter 95% of all porn sites which, in terms of the popular view of the internet is most of it.) and other groups who consider it to be a waste.
Groups that will support such a measure are primarily religious. And this is an important point to be made.
Potential Legislation and the Senate
According to Opposition Senator Nick Minchin (Liberal Party) legislation will be required for Australia to undertake such a task. I assume that has more to do with punishments for circumventing the filter and issues regarding defamation from being added to the blacklist for no good reason rather the censorship.
The reason I say that is because in terms of free speech Australia is a country where it is enshrined as an ideal, not a political reality. We have no right to free speech, the closest we have is that you aren't allowed to censor political communication.
This aside if legislation is required then the odds are that it will easily pass the Lower House based on numbers and the party line being enforced. The real fight will be in the Senate. The passing or defeat of this bill relies on a majority in the Senate, and it looks like Labor will need to woo many people into joining them.
In October of 2008 it was reported that Steve Fielding would support the filter if it would block all porn, and Nick Xenophon would try to use the bill to block foreign gambling sites (following his platform of "no pokies").
At present however only one of these two key members of the Senate support the filter. That member is Steve Fielding, the Family First Party.
For those that don't know, Family First are essentially the religious party in Australian Politics and they hold one of the two important positions in the Senate.
Nick Xenophon is the sole independent senator in the Senate, and a senator from my home state of South Australia. In a Q&A with ARN in November of this year, Xenophon has stated that he does not support the mandatory filtering of the internet.
Essentially at present the Senate would be hostile to filtering legislation. With the Coalition, the Greens and Xenophon voting no, and all along party lines, then the Senate would be hostile to any filtering legislation. It is quite possible that it will fail in the Senate.
I would question whether Tony Abbott, the Liberal leader and devout Christian, would pressure the Senate Liberals into voting for the bill, but I suspect that even he sees that it would cause him to lose leadership as it would probably fragment the party even more.
This issue will not go away however, but if the mandatory filtering does manage to pass through Parliament, or is implemented in another way, it will most likely become an election issue at the next election.
We may see either a change of government or a radical change in the political makeup of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Conclusions
What should be concluded from this? Well firstly it's that we do need proper protections of our rights. It is not good enough to see them as ideals that are culturally engrained, because it allows for abuses of power. This is part of the issue here. Will we see the abuse of power from minorities who don't want people to have access to certain information because they don't agree with it?
Will we see proper oversight of the ACMA blacklist, and if other, foreign, blacklists are used (like say the UK's Internet Watch Foundation blacklist) what chances of recourse will we have if they blacklist a site?
And do we need filtered internet? In terms of protecting children it seems that most Australians feel that it should be the job of parents and not the government. Groups like Save the Children prefer proper education rather then stopping everyone from visiting certain sites. If these groups see that filtering is not the right way to go then the claim that "it's to protect the children" is more likely to be a smokescreen.
Like issues regarding the media part of the onus is on the viewer. If you don't like what it is that you are watching/listening to/reading then you should stop. Change the channel or radio station, turn the page or close the tab. Don't try to force your morality on other people, which appears to be part of the reason for this filter in the first place. Just because you don't like websites that feature legal porn does not mean that you can tell me that I can't look at that legal porn.
At present this issue is not even at a stage where you could make a bill. There are too many holes, not enough oversight and quite possibly secret blacklists. The fight may be far from over, but it's not one we can afford to lose.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Dick Dastardly is a scapegoat
I thought of something random at work today.
If anyone has ever seen the cartoon Wacky Races then they would know that Dick Dastardly is always being called a cheater.
My though was that they always called him a cheater, but the others would cheat as well. I suspect that it's because he stops to cheat.
Think about it, all the other cars had devices that essentially allow them to cheat. Take a look at the Gruesome Twosome for example. They have a ghost that they use to scare the other racers, now how the hell is that not cheating? Or Professor Pat Pending, his "car" can turn into anything. "Oh dear the road has just suddenly turned into a lake. I'll just turn my car into a jetpack." Because we all know that it's still a car race when you're using a jetpack.
Essentially the entire race was a bunch of cheaters cheating their way to victory. (A notable exception would have to be Peter Perfect, whose car was just that, a car. And it usually fell to bits because of it.)
But Dick was always the "cheater". But maybe there was another, more sinister reason for it.
In order to cheat as much as he does he would need money. Since he never wins any races he would probably run out very quickly.
I think therefore that he would have been paid by the Wacky Races people (if such an organisation existed) to cheat to make the races more interesting. There is no other reason for it. If he is able to get a massive lead every race (and several times too) to set his traps then it stands to reason that he could, you know, just race normally and win.
By scapegoating him it also allows the people to claim that the others don't cheat, because you have to stop and do something in order to cheat "properly".
So that's pretty much it, Dick Dastardly is a scapegoat, but he's also part of a massive conspiracy that involves him being a scapegoat.
If anyone has ever seen the cartoon Wacky Races then they would know that Dick Dastardly is always being called a cheater.
My though was that they always called him a cheater, but the others would cheat as well. I suspect that it's because he stops to cheat.
Think about it, all the other cars had devices that essentially allow them to cheat. Take a look at the Gruesome Twosome for example. They have a ghost that they use to scare the other racers, now how the hell is that not cheating? Or Professor Pat Pending, his "car" can turn into anything. "Oh dear the road has just suddenly turned into a lake. I'll just turn my car into a jetpack." Because we all know that it's still a car race when you're using a jetpack.
Essentially the entire race was a bunch of cheaters cheating their way to victory. (A notable exception would have to be Peter Perfect, whose car was just that, a car. And it usually fell to bits because of it.)
But Dick was always the "cheater". But maybe there was another, more sinister reason for it.
In order to cheat as much as he does he would need money. Since he never wins any races he would probably run out very quickly.
I think therefore that he would have been paid by the Wacky Races people (if such an organisation existed) to cheat to make the races more interesting. There is no other reason for it. If he is able to get a massive lead every race (and several times too) to set his traps then it stands to reason that he could, you know, just race normally and win.
By scapegoating him it also allows the people to claim that the others don't cheat, because you have to stop and do something in order to cheat "properly".
So that's pretty much it, Dick Dastardly is a scapegoat, but he's also part of a massive conspiracy that involves him being a scapegoat.
Saturday, 21 November 2009
Atheists in a pseudo-fundamentalist world
It's a strange thing being segregated. It's even stranger when you consider that I'm 13 697km away from their physical location.
I've mentioned before that I spend time one the CARM Discussion Forums (an apologetics group) however the current turn of events makes me wonder if they are actually apologetics.
I didn't actually spend a lot of time on the "Atheism" section, I found it to be rather dull because the few Christians who were there were either those actively proselytising or just trolling. There may have been a few actually interested in what Atheists do and the likes, but not many.
However, a post from the President of CARM (Matt Slick) changed everything. This is where the post is located. Since registration is required the entire post is reproduced below:
So we are limited to two sections, the Atheism one, and the Evolution and Intelligent Design one. Now these two subforums are in a section called "Secular". There are 11 sections just there alone. All in all there are 100 main sections, each with varying numbers of sub-sections. Atheists are no permitted to use 2% of the entire forum. But that's ok apparently because according to their vice-president, Diane Sellner (Diane S) who says here:
I guess the reason they aren't banning us outright has to do with their purpose and scope:
Continuing on:
Again they stress the need to have different viewpoints. In a way the ideal of the forum is one that allows apologists from different faiths to do their thing.
But the underlined is the interesting bit. In segregating atheists they are creating a board where Christians can talk to Christians (to be specific I mean all denominations) without seeing a non-theist appearing to put forward their point of view.
Then there is this part of the quite extensive rules:
But I can't conclude without saying that I understand that it's a private organisation and I'm at their whims when I agreed to join the forum. It's just that it essentially undermines their purpose.
The fact of the matter is that the atheists there are now caged on CARM. We're there to look at unless you want to discuss things with us.
Unfortunately the few Christians that will appear will be trolls and essentially all Fundamentalist Protestants. To be honest the reason I joined was not to argue solely with those people. When I was able to look around I saw many varied posts from people of different faiths, denominations and from a wide range of religious viewpoints. I learned things about moderates and I've become more tolerant of religious people in general.
Now I can look. I can watch all these people discuss things but I won't be able to ask questions of people who will never venture into the Atheism section. CARM has, essentially, censored the Atheists from their forum but at least they threw us a bone. It might be a crappy bone, but it's a bone nonetheless.
I say this now because of a response from a poster calling himself 1TrueDisciple who said in response to me saying that if he were in charge all the Atheists would be banned:
I've mentioned before that I spend time one the CARM Discussion Forums (an apologetics group) however the current turn of events makes me wonder if they are actually apologetics.
I didn't actually spend a lot of time on the "Atheism" section, I found it to be rather dull because the few Christians who were there were either those actively proselytising or just trolling. There may have been a few actually interested in what Atheists do and the likes, but not many.
However, a post from the President of CARM (Matt Slick) changed everything. This is where the post is located. Since registration is required the entire post is reproduced below:
Atheists are now restricted to post only on the atheism (future sub boards) and evolution board.So because some Atheists were trolling that means that all of us are to be segregated from the religious people because some Atheists troll.
Super Member Atheists will be permitted to keep current privileges to other forums only until their membership expires and then they will be restricted to the Atheism/Evolution board. Any renewals of Supermembership now/thereafter will be restricted to atheism/evolution board.
More changes are coming.
Why? Trolling.
I suggest you don't argue with me about it or bannings will occur.
thanks
So we are limited to two sections, the Atheism one, and the Evolution and Intelligent Design one. Now these two subforums are in a section called "Secular". There are 11 sections just there alone. All in all there are 100 main sections, each with varying numbers of sub-sections. Atheists are no permitted to use 2% of the entire forum. But that's ok apparently because according to their vice-president, Diane Sellner (Diane S) who says here:
See, they're going to give us some subsections so we can talk about similar yet different issues to the rest of the forum.Important notice concerning Atheists/Agnostics
If you want to debate Atheists/Agnostics/Secular Humanists, you will have to go to the Atheism forum, since they will be restricted to the Atheism forums. We will be making a few sub forums in the next day or so for the Atheists/Agnostics.
They will NOT be permitted to debate on the Apologetics or other forums on CARM but Evo/ID for now. Again, at your own risk, don't expect them all to "play nice" you will have to debate the Atheists on the Atheism forum, copy your last post to them and MOVE your discussions to the Atheism forum if you wish to continue your discussions.
I guess the reason they aren't banning us outright has to do with their purpose and scope:
The CARM discussion boards exist for several reasons. First, they are to promote conversation among people with different viewpoints. Second, they are to help train Christians on how to deal with false religious systems. Third, they are to help Christians become better equipped to defend the Christian faith against non-theological systems.This is apparently to allow conversation among people with different viewpoints. This is because this is an "apologist" site. In order for apologists do do what they do they need to be exposed to other viewpoints. It's a logical approach to take because apologetics requires a person to know what their belief says, and also what others think of their beliefs.
Continuing on:
Because of the nature of discussion and facing false doctrines, this means that Christians will be exposed to anti-Christian arguments from such groups as the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the atheists, the evolutionists,1 etc. Some Christians think that this is a bad idea. They say that it is better to have only a discussion board where Christians can talk to Christians without the intrusion and challenge of the unbelievers. If this is how you feel, then these boards are not for you.
Again they stress the need to have different viewpoints. In a way the ideal of the forum is one that allows apologists from different faiths to do their thing.
But the underlined is the interesting bit. In segregating atheists they are creating a board where Christians can talk to Christians (to be specific I mean all denominations) without seeing a non-theist appearing to put forward their point of view.
Then there is this part of the quite extensive rules:
19. Censorship:Technically their actions actually violate their own rules.
- Please feel free to agree or disagree without fear of censorship or ridicule. CARM does not stand for censorship but will enforce requirements of decency per the board rules. You are, of course, free to discourse within the limits of the rules.
But I can't conclude without saying that I understand that it's a private organisation and I'm at their whims when I agreed to join the forum. It's just that it essentially undermines their purpose.
The fact of the matter is that the atheists there are now caged on CARM. We're there to look at unless you want to discuss things with us.
Unfortunately the few Christians that will appear will be trolls and essentially all Fundamentalist Protestants. To be honest the reason I joined was not to argue solely with those people. When I was able to look around I saw many varied posts from people of different faiths, denominations and from a wide range of religious viewpoints. I learned things about moderates and I've become more tolerant of religious people in general.
Now I can look. I can watch all these people discuss things but I won't be able to ask questions of people who will never venture into the Atheism section. CARM has, essentially, censored the Atheists from their forum but at least they threw us a bone. It might be a crappy bone, but it's a bone nonetheless.
I say this now because of a response from a poster calling himself 1TrueDisciple who said in response to me saying that if he were in charge all the Atheists would be banned:
If I were in charge, there wouldn't even be an atheist forum.
Thursday, 12 November 2009
It's too hot to study
I know I really should but it's just too hot.
We're currently having the hottest November since 1894.
It's going to be 36°C on Saturday according to the quick Google check, which will be fun. Especially since it's Pageant Day, but I'm sure we're still going to get a lot of people, but I don't think that we'll get any Guinness World Records for anything this year (I'll tell you later.)
Anyway, I should be studying I've got exams coming up.
We're currently having the hottest November since 1894.
It's going to be 36°C on Saturday according to the quick Google check, which will be fun. Especially since it's Pageant Day, but I'm sure we're still going to get a lot of people, but I don't think that we'll get any Guinness World Records for anything this year (I'll tell you later.)
Anyway, I should be studying I've got exams coming up.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Ray Comfort makes a fool of himself
Ray Comfort, the banana guy, was invited to debate Eugenie Scott by a bloke called Dan Gilgoff. this was his first post. Eugenie makes some very good points and I'm not going to bother writing too much about Comfort's first post.
For a summary Comfort basically says "book burning atheists are angry racism racism racism Hitler non-standard definition for "atheist" plug for book angry atheists abuse Amazon I like science theory theory theory no evidence qualifiers are bad I only mean well really people should read the book evolution is like Mormonism it's a miracle and Darwin is a fantasy writer."
I must admit that I did like this paragraph:
That's what an Atheist is? It's not someone who "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"?
Why that sure looks like someone moving the goalposts there doesn't it?
Then again there are members in his camp that don't seem to have a very solid definition of a Kind or Baramin.
Then it's that scientists use speculative words when talking about something we don't know for certain. Based on that paragraph then we can say that God must have built the pyramids because we don't know for certain how they were built. Look at all these possible ways that we think the Ancient Egyptians built their pyramids.
Then we see Comfort contradict himself with his "forever moving and changing line. It does make me wonder what he thinks science is. I guess it must be some sort of unchanging pseudo-Bible where you'll be damned for all eternity if you dare change it. It's also a really good hyperbole.
But enough about Ray and his first post. I'm going to talk about his second post.
We start with some back pedalling, Comfort immediately addresses the criticism of his book put forward by Scott, that Comfort removed some of the chapters. Personally I think that the reason Comfort decided initially to remove chapters was so he could make Darwin's work seem weaker then it actually is.
But since he's put those removed chapter back in there isn't really any problem now, even with his introduction you would still be getting yourself a copy of On the Origin of Species.
So let us move on:
Really Ray? Really?
Nothing at all makes sense? I guess we are seeing another example of a creationist redefining a word, in this case "evolution". It's clear that Comfort takes a middle ground regarding "microevolution". So clearly he must be talking about "macroevolution" which in creationist circles is some fanciful magical form of evolution that has no grounding at all anywhere.
When you make a strawman it's easy to make one that conforms to your beliefs.
I'm pretty sure when he says "half evolved" it's that a creature has "half a wing" or "half a gill" or something stupid like that.
So I'm going to propose a new theory that explains this:
Evolution is "quantised" (for lack of a better word) so you can't have a "half evolved" species.
My evidence is the fossil record, I now call on the Nobel Prize Committee to give me lots and lots of money.
Well from what I've read of it, the reason she says not to bother reading it is because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What does Jesus have to do exactly with evolution? Or Hitler?
The introduction is just a veiled attempt to poison the well and nothing more.
I'm going to skip the stuff about ardipithicus ramidus because it appears to be Comfort misunderstanding information that he has been told.
So I'm just going to skip towards the end.
(my bold)
Ray, it's a museum about evolution, the whole museum is one giant exhibit about evolution. It's right there in the name of the museum.
I'm going to bring this post to a close. I took a while to write it, because I had a few distractions and in that time Eugenie Scott wrote her reply, and there is a thoughts post.
I'm going to say though, that Comfort comes across as someone who is misinformed about what exactly science is, but I get the feeling that he knows better. I think he's like many of the more vocal creationists (big names and anonymous people online), someone who actually knows that they are wrong, but is so willingly blinded by dogmatic faith that they will torture scientific findings so they can prop up their faith in what can really only be described as a weak and quite possibly incompetent creator God.
Looking over the your thoughts post I think that there are many people who see can see through the lies and misrepresentation of Comfort and his ilk.
However there are many people who don't and are blinded by misinformation. There is still a lot of work to be done in the US, and it will be achieved through the hard work of people like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE.
For a summary Comfort basically says "book burning atheists are angry racism racism racism Hitler non-standard definition for "atheist" plug for book angry atheists abuse Amazon I like science theory theory theory no evidence qualifiers are bad I only mean well really people should read the book evolution is like Mormonism it's a miracle and Darwin is a fantasy writer."
I must admit that I did like this paragraph:
The problem when arguing with those who believe in atheistic evolution is that they move goal posts by redefining atheism or evolution or the word species. From Darwin to Dawkins, they speak the language of speculation, continually using words like probably, maybe, perhaps, and could've. And Darwinism is as nebulous as a puffy cloud on a hot windy day, forever moving, changing, and expanding—because its bounds are limited only by the fertile human imagination.Good ol' Comfort. First we see him claim that "evolutionists move the goalposts regarding definitions" considering that he said earlier:
The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everything—which is a scientific impossibility.Really?
That's what an Atheist is? It's not someone who "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"?
Why that sure looks like someone moving the goalposts there doesn't it?
Then again there are members in his camp that don't seem to have a very solid definition of a Kind or Baramin.
Then it's that scientists use speculative words when talking about something we don't know for certain. Based on that paragraph then we can say that God must have built the pyramids because we don't know for certain how they were built. Look at all these possible ways that we think the Ancient Egyptians built their pyramids.
Then we see Comfort contradict himself with his "forever moving and changing line. It does make me wonder what he thinks science is. I guess it must be some sort of unchanging pseudo-Bible where you'll be damned for all eternity if you dare change it. It's also a really good hyperbole.
But enough about Ray and his first post. I'm going to talk about his second post.
We start with some back pedalling, Comfort immediately addresses the criticism of his book put forward by Scott, that Comfort removed some of the chapters. Personally I think that the reason Comfort decided initially to remove chapters was so he could make Darwin's work seem weaker then it actually is.
But since he's put those removed chapter back in there isn't really any problem now, even with his introduction you would still be getting yourself a copy of On the Origin of Species.
So let us move on:
Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution."
Really Ray? Really?
Nothing at all makes sense? I guess we are seeing another example of a creationist redefining a word, in this case "evolution". It's clear that Comfort takes a middle ground regarding "microevolution". So clearly he must be talking about "macroevolution" which in creationist circles is some fanciful magical form of evolution that has no grounding at all anywhere.
When you make a strawman it's easy to make one that conforms to your beliefs.
Nothing we have in creation is half evolved.
I'm pretty sure when he says "half evolved" it's that a creature has "half a wing" or "half a gill" or something stupid like that.
So I'm going to propose a new theory that explains this:
Evolution is "quantised" (for lack of a better word) so you can't have a "half evolved" species.
My evidence is the fossil record, I now call on the Nobel Prize Committee to give me lots and lots of money.
My second point is that Scott is happy for students to read the first eight and the last 10 pages of the Introduction, but she doesn't want them to waste their time on the meat in the sandwich. She says that this portion is my weakest, most tasteless of arguments. If that is true, shouldn't she then encourage students to read that portion to prove the weakness of my case? Instead, she says not to read it. I wonder why?
Well from what I've read of it, the reason she says not to bother reading it is because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What does Jesus have to do exactly with evolution? Or Hitler?
The introduction is just a veiled attempt to poison the well and nothing more.
I'm going to skip the stuff about ardipithicus ramidus because it appears to be Comfort misunderstanding information that he has been told.
So I'm just going to skip towards the end.
She then encourages doubters to consider museums where "you will find transitional fossils galore." I went to the Smithsonian to see the fossils galore, and they were there—millions of fossils that were evidence of special creation. The Smithsonian didn't have any transitional fossils that proved evolution (staunch believers claim that they have them, but not on display). I also visited the evolution museum in Paris (Grande Galerie de L'Evolution). I took a camera crew, and we spent an hour looking for the evolution exhibit. It didn't have one. All it had were millions of fossils of fully formed animals that God created.
(my bold)
Ray, it's a museum about evolution, the whole museum is one giant exhibit about evolution. It's right there in the name of the museum.
I'm going to bring this post to a close. I took a while to write it, because I had a few distractions and in that time Eugenie Scott wrote her reply, and there is a thoughts post.
I'm going to say though, that Comfort comes across as someone who is misinformed about what exactly science is, but I get the feeling that he knows better. I think he's like many of the more vocal creationists (big names and anonymous people online), someone who actually knows that they are wrong, but is so willingly blinded by dogmatic faith that they will torture scientific findings so they can prop up their faith in what can really only be described as a weak and quite possibly incompetent creator God.
Looking over the your thoughts post I think that there are many people who see can see through the lies and misrepresentation of Comfort and his ilk.
However there are many people who don't and are blinded by misinformation. There is still a lot of work to be done in the US, and it will be achieved through the hard work of people like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)