Interesting Stuff Thread

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

What you can defend against is allowing the support network to exist inside your country. Safe houses, sleeper cells etc. The whole fifth column network.

I'm not entirely clear on how demonising an entire segment of the population is supposed to make safe houses and sleeper cells less likely.

recedite

looksee wrote: »

I can't help seeing a connection between the people in this video and the decision to go Atheist...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4180626/Fascinating-film-captures-reactions-diving-board.html#v-8284470162306809370

yes, sorry its the Daily Mail, still worth watching.

There's a great Mr Bean video on this subject, very funny. Unfortunately the stigma of walking back down the stairs is such that most people arriving at the edge of the platform can neither go forward nor backward, so they stand there in an oscillating state of indecision.

I like to go up to Lisburn pool every once in a while to challenge myself, but its only half that height. Even at 5 metres its hard to see exactly where the surface of the water is, all you see a kind of shimmering, mesmerising effect.

There's one diving pool in the republic, in Blanchardstown, but sadly they don't allow random fools to just arrive in and use it.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not entirely clear on how demonising an entire segment of the population is supposed to make safe houses and sleeper cells less likely.

Demonising would be counter-productive alright.
You'll notice that there is very little terrorism in Japan though.
Their population may be falling, but they just don't seem to care about that.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

What I mean is, there is no real defence against the suitcase. It could arrive in on a shipping container, or be carried by an American who thinks they are being paid to smuggle marijuana.

What you can defend against is allowing the support network to exist inside your country. Safe houses, sleeper cells etc. The whole fifth column network.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not entirely clear on how demonising an entire segment of the population is supposed to make safe houses and sleeper cells less likely.

Demonising an entire population when there is no evidence at all that they have been involved in supporting a network of safe houses, sleeper cells, etc. That's rather the point. There is no evidence-based case for linking Trump's measure to the threats which Americans face.

The western liberal tradition would say emphatically that it is wrong to treat someone as a potential terrorist simply because he shares a nationality (or a religion) with other people known to be terrorists. But if, like Trump and his enablers, you're happy to piss on western values while posturing about defending them, at least associate terrorism with the nationality of the known terrorists. There hasn't been a single death in the United States from terrorist attacks perpetrated by people of any of the seven nationalities which Trump has sought to ban. There have been numerous deaths in the US from terrorist attacks perpetrated by people of nationalities against which Trump has taken no action.

Even if you believe that Trump is justified in victimising people on the basis of their nationality, he has chosen the wrong nationalities. That's what I mean when I say that we can't really think that Trump's measures have anything to do with protecting people from terrorist threats. They plainly don't.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not entirely clear on how demonising an entire segment of the population is supposed to make safe houses and sleeper cells less likely.

It doesn't and while DJT appears to be sufficiently deluded to think it does, I'd imagine that the smarter people in the wider GOP are probably aware of one likely path for the strategy they're now following.

Namely, that random terrorists, quite possibly from one or other of the banned countries, will figure out that this is a golden (orange?) opportunity to carry out a terrorist attack. Unlike most things with DJT, it's likely that size won't matter here since they know that DJT will overreact regardless of what happens.

In any case, the event is likely to be exploited by DJT/GOP to legitimize a power grab probably by restricting civil liberties at home, and abroad, by precipitating some cock-eyed military engagement or ill-aimed sanctions or something like that. That response will then legitimize the terrorists' attack and provide them with political reality and power which they don't currently have.

It's a tried and trusted political path they're now on and it's been followed by unfit leaders since time immemorial.

silverharp

in as much as poll are correct these days :pac:


https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration#

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

at least associate terrorism with the nationality of the known terrorists. There hasn't been a single death in the United States from terrorist attacks perpetrated by people of any of the seven nationalities which Trump has sought to ban...

Maybe you are happy with non-lethal terrorist attacks. The judge who put a stay on Trumps EO got it wrong when he went further and said no arrests had been made.

Jeff Sessions has obviously done a lot of research on this whole area, and when the democrats stop delaying his nomination to AG, I presume he will take his place and mount a good legal defence of the EO.

Also worth noting that it is not a ban, and not directed at all Muslims. Most Muslims live in countries unaffected by the enhanced vetting procedures.

As it was the Obama administration who picked out the named countries, why were you not outraged by the choice of countries on the list when it was first drawn up?

All Trump has done is to take the same list, and make the proposed extra vetting even more restrictive than Obama had already envisioned.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Most Muslims live in countries unaffected by the enhanced vetting procedures.

Indeed - and all countries affected by the travel ban provided no terrorists at all.

recedite wrote: »

As it was the Obama administration who picked out the named countries, why were you not outraged by the choice of countries on the list when it was first drawn up?

Cherry-picking.

Four countries were identified by Congress and Obama's DHS added three more to make up the list of seven. The intention of the previous administration was to subject people who travelled to these countries to additional scrutiny as it is known that radicalized individuals travel to them (there are other countries whhcih radicalized people visit, but they were not included - probably for political reasons).

The intention of the DJT/GOP order, however, extends that additional scrutiny and actively bans all travel by citizens of those countries - all of which are majority-islamic. It's the ban which people object to and that's the doing of DJT/GOP and not Obama.

You can find more on this here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/07/trumps-claim-that-obama-first-identified-the-seven-countries-in-his-travel-ban

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Indeed - and all countries affected by the travel ban provided no terrorists at all.

Perhaps you didn't have time to read my link above? You'll see this claim is false.

Regarding the "ban", It was only going to be a "ban" for the 90 day period until the enhanced procedures could be established and put into place.

Your link goes into a lot of hairsplitting detail, but it does not dispute the basic fact that it was the Obama administration that identified these countries as a particular danger.

It is patently obvious that was because of the level of active Islamic extremism and violence in those countries. Yet nobody at the time claimed it was "religious discrimination".

The 90 days will probably be up by the time the stay is lifted and the EO is reactivated, so I'm not sure how that will play out.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Regarding the "ban", It was only going to be a "ban" for the 90 day period until the enhanced procedures could be established and put into place.

A ban is a ban, even if it's for just three months until whatever "enhanced vetting" procedure is deployed.

If a ban doesn't ban something, then is it an "Alternative Ban"?

recedite wrote: »

Your link goes into a lot of hairsplitting detail,

I'd have thought that was quite a good thing in a fact-checking article unless one is searching for "Alternative Accuracy".

recedite wrote: »

but it does not dispute the basic fact that it was the Obama administration that identified these countries as a particular danger.

Four of the countries were subject to additional scrutiny already. The DHS identified three more while ignoring others. See the link I provided above.

Can you provide evidence that Obama wrote that list and supplied it to the DHS?

recedite

A temporary ban that is unenforceable anyway because of a legal stay could be described as an Alternative Ban alright.

Hairsplitting detail is not helpful when its main purpose is to form a distracting smokescreen.
Do you agree, or not, that it was the Obama administration that finalised the choice of the 7 countries listed?

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Do you agree, or not, that it was the Obama administration that finalised the choice of the 7 countries listed?

Just so we're clear: it's your assertion that those countries were chosen on the basis of the Obama administration's analysis?

You're telling us that the current administration has so much admiration for the work of its predecessor that it's uncritically implementing its policies?

TheChizler

silverharp wrote: »

in as much as poll are correct these days :pac:


https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration#

I wonder how similar that graph would be one where the question was "Do you agree that ALL migration should be stopped." A more relevant question might be "Do you agree that ONLY migration from mostly Muslim countries should be stopped."

silverharp

TheChizler wrote: »

I wonder how similar that graph would be one where the question was "Do you agree that ALL migration should be stopped." A more relevant question might be "Do you agree that ONLY migration from mostly Muslim countries should be stopped."

If you asked "all migration" Im guessing the figures would be much lower, I guess the question is would you vote accordingly? I guess elections in France and Holland might throw some light on it.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Hairsplitting detail is not helpful when its main purpose is to form a distracting smokescreen.

So you're accusing me of dishonesty? That's a fairly unhelpful accusation, I have to say, and somewhat beneath your ability to debate.

recedite wrote: »

Do you agree, or not, that it was the Obama administration that finalised the choice of the 7 countries listed?

As above, the DHS rolled out the names of the three countries, I presume on the basis of evidence provided by the CIA. Other countries with similar problems were not listed by the DHS. Obama was president when this change happened. The congress and the senate were controlled by the Republicans when this change happened.

I'm not familiar enough with how the US is run to say which branch of government proposed and which approved the list. It's likely that Obama proposed a bunch of countries, Congress and the Senate edited the list, and Obama approved the final list from Congress/Senate.

If you have evidence that Obama directed the DHS to list the three additional countries off his own bat and without any oversight, I'd love to hear it.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're telling us that the current administration has so much admiration for the work of its predecessor that it's uncritically implementing its policies?

One suspects that DJT/GOP are attempting to transfer the blame for the public relations disaster.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

If you have evidence that Obama directed the DHS to list the three additional countries off his own bat and without any oversight, I'd love to hear it.

Nobody has said that.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

robindch wrote:

If you have evidence that Obama directed the DHS to list the three additional countries off his own bat and without any oversight, I'd love to hear it.

Nobody has said that.

Well, you asked the following question:

recedite wrote:

Do you agree, or not, that it was the Obama administration that finalised the choice of the 7 countries listed?

...and I explained my current understanding of what happened. I trust you found that useful.

If you'd prefer instead to play language games to get DJT/GOP off the hook for implementing a sudden ban on travel from seven countries, well, that's really in the realm of "alternative reality".

recedite

An odd but interesting little video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19A53SyAUak&feature=youtu.be

pauldla

China, atheism, and the perceived spread of Islam in the People's Republic. Quite an interesting read.

The Atheist Manifesto

robindch

Interesting story about a Benedictine monk who travels around the Mediterranean and the Middle East, attempting to secure the future of ancient manuscripts:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/the-monk-who-saves-manuscripts-from-isis/517611/

recedite

pauldla wrote: »

China, atheism, and the perceived spread of Islam in the People's Republic. Quite an interesting read.

The Atheist Manifesto

I had to laugh at this quote, sometimes it takes an outside perspective to remind you how ridiculous things must seem in your own country to other people. At least we can eat pork and wear short skirts!

First you can’t eat pork, then girls can’t don short skirts…, then your kid can’t go to school because enrollment favors kids from certain religions. It’s about our very dear interests!

This is also interesting...

Popular Weibo posts opposing the proposed measure cite the “secular joys” of the Han Chinese life as worthy of protection, going all the way back to the times of the Monkey King when such classic literary works as the Journey to the West could make fun of the ridiculous aspects of religion. “The proposed rule will destroy a core part of Chinese culture”, asserts one post.

I'm not familiar with the works mentioned, but its interesting that the Han Chinese now seem to consider an irreverent view of religion, and secularism, as an ancient part of their culture, ie predating communism. Whether this is actually true or not is another thing I suppose. They did have that whole "son of heaven" emperor thing going on before communism, which seems to be at variance to the above quoted version of history.

Hotblack Desiato

Is this a first in Ireland?

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/drive-thru-ashes-do-ash-wednesday-without-leaving-your-car-1.2992209

The usual practice of receiving ashes comes via attending a Mass. If you had to be analytical about it, parishioners in the past might have thought you had to earn your ashes on your forehead by putting in the time at Mass. Now you can just turn up at the drive-through in Glenamaddy and get them anyway. It does beg the doctrinal question: are the ashes distributed via a drive-through less meaningful than ashes received after attending a Mass?

What’s next, by way of convenience and church services? Might we see a time in the future when parishioners don’t actually go inside the church at all, but drive-through its car park? If you can receive ashes without having to attend Mass, might there be a time when you can receive Communion without even having to enter the church? Will the car be the new confession box?

'Less meaningful' :pac:

Of course those oh-so-devout catholics who are too busy to go to a mass during the day could just rock up in the evening and get the ashes then. But then nobody would get to see them going around with ashes all day which is surely the point of the whole exercise to the extent that it has a point at all.

robindch

UK PM Teresa May's spokesman has taken time out from working towards the heat death of the UK, to announce that the PM - a catholic - has given up crisps for lent:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39121559

One eyed Jack

robindch wrote: »

UK PM Teresa May's spokesman has taken time out from working towards the heat death of the UK, to announce that the PM - a catholic - has given up crisps for lent:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39121559

All fairness, I think they're taking a leaf out of the Icelandic Prime Ministers play book -

"Down wiv de yoof - Check"

In actual interesting news (hope this is ok Mods?), this weeks Boards AMA is with a Research Scientist -

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057711773

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...But then nobody would get to see them going around with ashes all day which is surely the point of the whole exercise to the extent that it has a point at all.

Its also in the church's interest to have a large number of people going around advertising their ash badge.
IMO drive-thru ashes is the median stage of the slippery slope.
Final stage is when ash merchants stand in the street and hassle passing pedestrians into accepting "free" ashes.

Best of all is when you can convince people that something is valuable, but restricted. That makes your product offering exclusive and highly sought after. The punters would have to queue up to get it, having already earned it by sitting through a weekday mass.
But the halcyon days of the ash being something of worth are now in the past, it would seem. Now its just a matter of getting it out there, smeared on as many foreheads as possible.

pauldla

From National Geographic:

This May Be the Oldest Known Sign of Life on Earth

Stalks of iron-rich minerals, each a fraction the size of an eyelash, may be evidence of the earliest life-forms to inhabit the newborn planet Earth. The tiny hematite tubes are as much as 4.28 billion years old, according to the scientists announcing the find, and they are stunningly similar to structures produced by microbes living around undersea hydrothermal vents.

Discovered in slices of rock recovered from northern Quebec, the microscopic metallic detritus—plus chemical signatures associated with ancient metabolisms—could push back the date at which life arose on Earth. If verified, these fossils would surpass 3.7-billion-year-old microbial mats found in Greenland as the oldest known traces of life.

The microfossils also lend support to the idea that the warm, watery, mineral-rich neighborhoods around submerged vents are prime places for life to emerge, whether on this planet, on the seafloors of icy moons, or elsewhere in the universe.

Let there be life, eh? Full article here.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the works mentioned, but its interesting that the Han Chinese now seem to consider an irreverent view of religion, and secularism, as an ancient part of their culture, ie predating communism.

Don't remember these guys from your childhood then?



Journey into the West, and Heroes of the marshes were serialised as kid's tv in the guise of Monkey and The Water Margin. Romance of the three kingdoms made it into a series of video games almost as long and epic as the Luo Guanzhong original. Interestingly, all the tv and video game stuff was made in Japan, but ended up published in China and hugely popular there.

Michael OBrien

pauldla wrote: »

From National Geographic:



Let there be life, eh? Full article here.

I view that line of research the most likely to end up being true.

Michael OBrien

smacl wrote: »

Don't remember these guys from your childhood then?



Journey into the West, and Heroes of the marshes were serialised as kid's tv in the guise of Monkey and The Water Margin. Romance of the three kingdoms made it into a series of video games almost as long and epic as the Luo Guanzhong original. Interestingly, all the tv and video game stuff was made in Japan, but ended up published in China and hugely popular there.

Used to love that program, although I cannot remember ANY actual story other than they seemed to travel constantly and have adventures along the way.