But the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology rejected the paper.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Christopher Lane says uncertainty is good
But, oddly, addresses his argument to atheists rather than theists.
-
Shmuley Boteach on what atheists can’t say
They can’t tell a soldier, “Your friend is in a better place.” Shmuley neglects to mention why that is.
-
A moment of petulance
One thing. We’ve all been seeing every inch of tape there is of bin Laden over and over again since Sunday evening. That one where his best pal grabs him by the hat for a hug and hangs on to the hat as if it were handles – that’s a goofy one. But that’s not the one I’m going to say about.
It’s the one where he’s holding a microphone. What’s up with that? Why does he hold it in that affected limp loose “look how special I am” way? I want to know. I’ve seen that clip about 50 times now, so I want to know.
I didn’t go outside and run around yelling “we’re number one,” so I get to ask why he held the mike in that silly way. If there’s anything I don’t like it’s affectation.
-
Catching up
While the U.S. government might have preferred to cremate Bin Laden’s remains prior to disposal, Muslim tradition forbids cremation because it’s inconsistent with the resurrection of the body.
Um…so is rotting. Is Muslim tradition unaware of this?
-
The fundamental question of the truth
Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse have doubts about Mary Warnock’s way of defending the social value of religious belief.
According to religious believers, their beliefs are not merely useful social instruments or efficient means for instilling good moral habits. They are rather commitments to very particular metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological views. These views provide the basis for the moral and communal practices among religious believers that Warnock finds socially valuable. But the social value of the practices provides no defense for the underlying views, all of which are, we contend, false. No discussion of the merits of religious practices and institutions should be permitted to evade the fundamental question of the truth of distinctively religious claims.
That is what I too think also likewise. I think that is one of the things that separate me and other gnus from the “be nice to religion” crowd. They are very concerned with political, instrumental matters like unity, cohesion, community, universal affection, sensitivity, solidarity, outreach, mutual understanding, and avoiding the remotest possibility of offending anyone by disputing an idea. We are more concerned with trying to think clearly and honestly about particular metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological views. Their concerns are more social or political, ours are more epistemological. This makes a difference.
-
Why Sam Harris is wrong about torture
This is an error so basic and obvious that someone scientifically trained should not miss it; Harris would probably not miss it, if it weren’t his own reasoning he’s defending.
-
Aikin and Talisse on Warnock on god [link fixed]
No discussion of the merits of religious practices and institutions should be permitted to evade the fundamental question of the truth of distinctively religious claims.
-
Ahmed Rashid on what’s next for al-Qaeda
Today every European country has an al-Qaeda cell. Hundreds of European Muslims have travelled to Pakistan for training and returned to Europe.
-
In the compound: how the bin Ladens lived
Their newspaper guy says every now and then he saw a red pick-up vehicle, with a goat inside, being driven to the compound.
-
“How dare you” aka “Patrick’s fallacy”
P makes an analogy between X and Y. A spots a way in which X is not like Y, and expresses shock-horror.
-
Atheists and freethinkers in Africa
Leo Igwe and Adebowale Ojowuro in Nigeria, Kwadwo Obeng from Ghana, Ayaan Hirsi Ali from Somalia, Annette Nalunga and Betty Nassaka in Uganda.
-
Rushdie on Pakistan and bin Laden
Excellent, no need to quote Facebook updates any more; Salman has written an article on the subject.
Many of us didn’t believe in the image of bin Laden as a wandering Old Man of the Mountains, living on plants and insects in an inhospitable cave somewhere on the porous Pakistan-Afghan border…Bin Laden was born filthy rich and died in a rich man’s house, which he had painstakingly built to the highest specifications. The U.S. administration confesses it was “shocked” by the elaborate nature of the compound.
Died in a rich man’s house, with women and children carefully placed around him as shields. What a guy.
Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted man, was found living at the end of a dirt road 800 yards from the Abbottabad military academy, Pakistan’s equivalent of West Point or Sandhurst, in a military cantonment where soldiers are on every street corner, just about 80 miles from the Pakistani capital Islamabad. This extremely large house had neither a telephone nor an Internet connection. And in spite of this we are supposed to believe that Pakistan didn’t know he was there, and that the Pakistani intelligence, and/or military, and/or civilian authorities did nothing to facilitate his presence in Abbottabad, while he ran al Qaeda, with couriers coming and going, for five years?
Well when you put it like that…it doesn’t seem very credible, does it.
Pakistan’s neighbor India, badly wounded by the November 26, 2008, terrorist attacks on Mumbai, is already demanding answers. As far as the anti-Indian jihadist groups are concerned—Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammad—Pakistan’s support for such groups, its willingness to provide them with safe havens, its encouragement of such groups as a means of waging a proxy war in Kashmir and, of course, in Mumbai—is established beyond all argument. In recent years these groups have been reaching out to the so-called Pakistani Taliban to form new networks of violence…
Pakistan needs to get its act together.
-
Salman Rushdie on Pakistan’s deadly game
We are supposed to believe that Pakistan didn’t know he was there, while he ran al Qaeda, with couriers coming and going, for five years?
-
Questions arising
Who owned the land on which the house was constructed? How was the land acquired, and from whom? Who designed the house, purpose-built to secure bin Laden? -
Nick Cohen on Charles the Meddler
To say that Prince Charles’s views are reactionary is to libel honest conservatives.
-
Red faces in Pakistan
Salman Rushdie’s Facebook page is an interesting place today. He noticed right off the bat that the location of bin Laden’s vacation home raises some tricky questions. So did William Dalrymple. 13 hours ago – which was 9 last night Pacific Time, so before Obama made the announcement.
Dalrymple: In Abbotabad next to the Pakistan’s main military academy. Funny that.
Rushdie: That’s right. Army town. Just the place for the world’s most wanted man to live unobserved.
Quite. I’ve been trying to picture it. Giant compound, 8 times the size of anything else in the neighborhood; 12 to 18 foot walls; mystery occupants; important military academy a few hundred meters away; retired military people all around. Nobody notices; nobody worries; nobody asks questions; nobody investigates.
Really?
I think not.
Rushdie in an update today, with a link to Simon Tisdall’s Guardian article:
Damn right it’s “embarrassing.” Osama purpose-builds a high-security luxury compound in a Pak military cantonment, 800 yards from Pakistan’s equivalent of West Point or Sandhurst, and for YEARS runs al-Qaeda from it, his couriers coming and going… and we’re supposed to believe Pakistan wasn’t protecting him? (Mullah Omar, it’s widely rumoured, is in another ISI safe house.)
On Salil Tripathi’s page, a friend of Salil’s said
Per the NYT the ISI are claiming it was a joint operation. Ha ha
Salil replied
Yes, they were rolling joints, I suppose!
We live in interesting times.
-
ObL’s location an embarrassment for Pakistan
Oh gee, there’s a huge mysterious walled compound a few hundred meters from a military academy – what could possibly go wrong?
-
It’s all about a beautiful dress
Oh yes child (that is, girl) beauty pageants, one of my favorite things. It’s so obviously a good idea to train girls from infancy to act, move, walk, and look as much like prostitutes as possible. Australia had, in its innocence, forgotten to have such things, but they are now on their way their thanks to the helpful interventions of US pageanters.
The anti-pageant groups claim pageants sexualise children
But the pro-pageant people, absurdly, say they don’t. No no, it’s
a positive and fun-filled family occasion that will boost participants’ self-confidence.Self-confidence at what? Attracting sexual attention? Why would anyone want to boost a six-year-old girl’s confidence at attracting sexual attention? If it’s so positive and fun-filled, why don’t they dress up little boys the same way?I’ll tell you why. Because it’s degrading and slavish, that’s why, and it would be an outrage to train little boys to do something degrading and slavish, but it’s perfectly all right to train little girls to do that. Why is it? Well because that’s supposed to be their job, and it’s ok to start teaching to be good at it before they can read.Annette Hill, owner of the Texas parent company Universal Royalty Beauty Pageant, who arrives in Australia a week before the pageant, said…”I don’t like golf but I am not going to go to a golf tournament and protest.”
Not relevant. It’s not about liking to do something oneself, it’s about doing things to very young children – very young girls.
”If you are looking at children in a sexual way, you should be ashamed of yourself and something is wrong with you. It’s all about a beautiful dress, a beautiful child with lots of personality performing on stage.”
Right, because the whole thing has nothing whatever to do with sex; the little girls are not dressed in a sexualized way, they are not loaded with makeup, they are performing on stage like any other child singing or reciting a poem.
However, Glenn Cupit, senior lecturer in child development at the University of South Australia, believes the young pageant participants are instructed to dress and behave in an adult way.
”The title is ‘child beauty pageant’ but if you look at the way the children are dressed and required to act, it’s actually a child sexualisation pageant,” he said. ”The children are put into skimpy clothes, they are taught to do bumps and grinds. It’s not looking at children’s beauty. It’s a particular idea of what beauty is, which is based on a highly sexualised understanding of female beauty.”
Exactly like the highly sexualized understanding of female beauty that mandates that female ballet dancers, gymnasts and ice skaters all have to wear the equivalent of bathing suits while male ballet dancers, gymnasts and ice skaters wear long tights and often long sleeves. Women have to look as naked and vulnerable as possible while men have to look as different from that as possible.
I’m off to play some golf.