ZAP Doesn’t Include Firearms and Killer Pets

This one is for Dylan Boswell, the shortest term facebook friend I’ve had so far. 


I find it interesting that someone promoting the Zero Aggression Principle would have need of a weapon designed to kill people.  It takes professional grade tolerance for contradiction to not see the hypocrisy in those two positions held together. How can you not be the aggressor while killing someone?  You can wave your hands in any flim-flam manner you wish, but no amount of hand waving will change the fact that you are alive and the other person is dead at your hand.  That is aggression, plain and simple.  It’s excusable in certain circumstances, but you don’t get to kill people (outside of war) just because you want to.

So yes, owning a gun that carries the appearance of one designed to kill people signals the potential of aggression (openly carrying any weapon signals this to some extent) Ask the Somalis, the Afghanis, the Iraqis if they felt threatened when approached by people carrying those weapons.

…and yes, you are stupid for owning a Pit Bull. That breed of dog was carefully bred for aggression against other dogs, a stronger bite and stronger physic.  As a dog owner whose dogs have been attacked by free-wandering Pit Bulls, more than once, I have very little sympathy for the cries of how gentle Pit Bulls are. They were made into weapons, to fight in a sport that mercifully (soon will) no longer exist. I’m not certain that the breed has a reason to continue to exist.

Facebook Status backdated to the blog. 


A bit of housecleaning here. Pit Bulls do not have stronger bites, nor are they physically stronger. They are more aggressive with other dogs and this is especially true if they have had training to be aggressive with other dogs; AKA, being trained to fight. The extent that any dog is aggressive is quite probably correlated to the history of that dogs lineage. In other words, if your dog is the direct descendant of dogs that were bred to guard and/or fight, you will have a dog that is aggressive with other dogs and sometimes people.

Having a dog that you want to threaten others with is having a liability on the end of the leash you are holding. You should picture dollars flying out of your pocket. You don’t want a dog that bites. What you do want is a dog that follows instruction. A subtle but important difference.

Conspiracy Cults; Getting What’s Coming to Them?

This is for Steven Vandervelde who, in his infinite wisdom, decided to unfriend me in the middle of a conversation on his wall (conversation appended) I was in the middle of real life, of watching movies with family, when this conversation started.

I should have resisted commenting on his post (that was how I started the comment I had to abandon because of his actions) I have no fondness for trolls, and despise myself when I catch myself trolling. Still, I have to wonder if the conspiracy theorists (see appended conversation) understand just how nutty their words appear, when seen from outside the realm of the conspiracy initiated; the people who simply “know” that the forces of government are arrayed against them. In yet another example of my inability to keep myself from arguing with the terrified weapons holder (a phrase that should give anyone pause) I attempted to explain that it was completely rational to limit weapons to people who are trained and licensed to use and carry firearms. That there is no conspiracy at the UN to steal all our guns.

The UN exists exactly as I described; it was created specifically to echo the will of the victors in World War Two, it does what we (our government) tells it to. Everyone who isn’t part of the conspiracy knows this. No one is proposing that you should not be allowed to defend yourself. Even if they were, such a proposal would contravene centuries of US law and the founding documents of the government of the United States; not to mention the most recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570) which has reversed the presumption that you could render the population of the US defenseless, legally.

Can Not Be Done.

Not without changing the precedent, something that is quite rare. Let that sink in for a moment.

Before I leave this subject, I’d like to highlight another point. Recently the world was treated to a breath of fresh air commonly referred to as the Arab Spring. Third World regions such as the Middle East (my apologies to anyone who takes offense to this characterization) are historically the most despotic. They have some of the worst records on human rights, freedoms; and most importantly gun ownership. Yet these people, officially unarmed by law, managed to overthrow several governments and change the course of the region, politically.  What does that mean when it comes to the necessity of arms and the need to make government responsive to the people? For me, it embroiders an opinion that I’ve long held; that revolution need not be violent in order to be effective.

The US is obsessed with guns. We have been since Lexington and Concord. In the 1700’s, it was necessary to hold arms in order to be able to effect change. This adage was observed and utilized through numerous generations, and taken to heart by several successful dictators of the recent past, which the gunnuts (a term I use with the greatest of sympathy) have enumerated ad nauseum during the current debate about guns. But that doesn’t mean that guns are ultimately of any use to those who hold them.  It bears noting that Adam Lanza’s mother (who purchased the guns he used in his mass shooting) ultimately disapproved of the use he put her guns too after he killed her with them.

…and that really is the question before us. The people who are opposed to this discussion on the basis of the discussion itself want to frame the question completely differently; but the real question remains, “can we limit access to weapons and yet retain our ability to defend ourselves?” Experience and history seem to indicate that this is a viable possibility, despite the (nearly) insane rants of those who would have you believe that if the government keeps you from purchasing and owning an Abrams tank, they are restricting your right to defend yourself. That conversation continues, in spite of the insanity.

There is something about the arguments of the conspiracy minded, though, that inspired this entire rant. The paranoid, like a broken clock, is right at least once a day (twice a 24 hour cycle) and the paranoid among us are already onto the weapon that will be used against them.

It’s been suggested in a few of the previous conversations I’ve had on this subject, that the government was going to restrict access to weapons based on a judgement of sanity; that they would deem us all insane and thereby take away all our guns. I’ll give them partial credit here.  There are people who have guns today who are (to establish a clinical judgment) completely nuts. Those people really shouldn’t have weapons, and I hereby approve of the government taking their weapons away from them, in furtherance of the safety of the rest of us.

You know who you are.

The rest of us, those of us who are quite sane, should probably welcome a discussion of what measures should be taken to limit access to weapons. After all, we’ve seen more mass shootings in the last few years than we’ve seen previously in history; if that knowledge doesn’t give us pause, then I guess it’s time to go buy those Bushmaster’s with 30 round clips, as well as the fallout shelters, a year’s worth of dry goods, a water purification plant and a good solar power system. Too bad there aren’t enough electric cars available on the market to make a ‘self-sufficient’ system truly viable (the operation of a refinery being beyond the ability of a small group of determined individuals) much less there being no real investments to hold all those fake dollars we invented over the last few decades…

…But please, don’t let me dissuade you.  They are coming for your guns. Go run and hide. We’ll let you know when it’s safe to come out.


Here are the saved comments and my embroidered responses to them. If they can block me and pat themselves on the back, I see little reason not to make myself sound smarter and righter than they are on my own blog. Screw ’em.

Steven Vandervelde shared L Neil Smith‘s photo.

[Just say “NO” image removed by Facebook poster]

To Obama, Feinstein, Biden, Schumer, Reid, McCarthy, DeGette, and the rest of weird, sick, criminal anti-gun fetishests …

I am saying no. I’m saying no to the weapons merchants, the profiteers and their defenders in government.

L Neil Smith Anthony, were you born a useful idiot, or did you have to take lessons? Go read some history. Victim disarmament is the all-important prelude to genocide — in this case democide. Go look at Agenda 21 and see what this government and the UN have in mind for you. 9/10 of the human population must die, in their view, the view of every top-level gun-grabber in the world, to save their lovely Mother Gaia.

I chose not to drink the conspiracy kool aid that appears to have infected the balance of libertarian thought. This is a fact-based observation, not an ad hominem. That it appears to be an ad hom is not my problem.

L Neil Smith American Independence was the result of a conspiracy. So was the Federal Reserve System and the income tax. Look up “Jekyll Island”. Not to mention the Manhattan Project. Or the dirty tricks that kept Ron Paul off the ballot. Are you ignorant of what Obama’s death squads are starting to do? Better look that up, too. Holding your nose loftily in the air only make it easier for the badguys to cut your throat.

And you never answered my question

I did answer your question. The fact is that the UN does what we want it to do. It was designed to do what we want it to do. If you don’t understand that basic fact, there’s no point in addressing the various other fallacies involved in the conspiracy theories you allude to.

Steven Vandervelde if you actually had a point you certainly failed to make it, minus the ad hominem attack. Are you really that incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion? Are we to suppose that you don’t support the right to self defense? Why do you call yourself a libertarian?

I don’t call myself a libertarian. Not anymore (not for quite awhile) Self defense? Self defense does not guarantee you a firearm, or else you’d emerge from the womb clutching one.

L Neil Smith I deal with them every day. Usually they’re cowards who simply don’t want to think about the murder and mayhem going on all around them. Or they’re too lazy to take charge of their own lives, which includes pulling their heads out and looking around. Natural-born Tories. Imagine one of them calling himself a libertarian!

Wonder what this guy is going to tell himself when Obama’s death squads become commoin knowledge.

Again I repeat, Not a libertarian. You gotta love the total lack of ad hom’s in their replies. So much more directly argumentative than my comments, not attacking the person at all. I really should try to emulate them I guess. Also, I’ve noticed a distinct lack of death squads since this back and forth occurred. Still waiting for them to appear.

L Neil Smith Anthony, I’m not sure I’d use the word “we” as promiscuously as you do. I agree that the evil fascist sum presently troubling us is widely distributed. I can’t tell which end is the dog and which end is the tail. The UN and the US government both approve Agenda 21. I’m not a part of the “we”, are you? I’ve written of UN officials and presidential advisers who agree that 9/10 of the population must be gotten rid of. I’m not a part of that “we’, either, are you?

I know that this is painful — it was for me — but get it through your head: you don’t live in Disneyland any more. You never did. The only way we’re gonna have the America we thought we had is to_make_ it, starting now.

Oh, and I don’t drink Kool-Ade. I drink Jameson’s.

I drink Kelt, myself. What alcohol preference has to do with a known cult reference is a matter of conjecture. I don’t think we should casually joke about the insanity of believing everyone is capable of handling firearms responsibly.  That they can and do hold these beliefs without question is one of the hallmarks of cult-like thought.

Oh, and Agenda 21?  Another baseless conspiracy theory.

Then you hear the knock on the door. They know. Four blue-helmets stand there, armed to the teeth. One of them hands you a slip of onion-skin reading “CITATION 36-H53.1: LEFT BATHROOM LIGHT ON DURING WORK SHIFT.” And without a word, you go with them. There’s no need to pack and no point in protesting. By nightfall, you’ll be farming wind at a Work Camp 100 miles outside of the city, and nobody will say a word about the new code-stamper at the factory on Monday. Because they don’t want to be next. And in the North American Continental Sphere, anyone can be next.

Skeptoid

Social media abuzz over Piers Morgan vs. Alex Jones

I hadn’t noticed. Apparently Alex Jones went on Piers Morgan’s show on CNN and was typically Alex Jones. Weirdly, people were surprised to discover that Alex Jones was a complete nutjob. People were also weirdly surprised that a talking head with a British accent doesn’t like guns, almost as if they didn’t know that the United Kingdom has some pretty strict regulations on guns, which is why the United States adopted the second amendment, rightly or wrongly.

This is further evidence that ,

  1. I’ve never been happier to not be a watcher/listener of either of these idiot’s shows (or CNN in general)
  2. That Alex Jones and a good portion of his followers are becoming dangerously deluded. Banning assault rifles isn’t coming for your guns. The assault rifle dressing on the weapon may be cosmetic, but it also might serve a purpose (too bad no one seems to be studying the subject in depth) and I would really like to ask these people who think they should have access to military grade weapons exactly which weekends each month are spent training with their (state/locally organized) militias? I’d really like to get a serious answer to that question, because it’s the part of the amendment which seems to be completely ignored. And
  3. It’s time to re-institute the fairness doctrine on bandwidths which are licensed from the FCC. If these panderers of vitriol wish to continue their paranoid rants, they should be required to balance their adrenaline feed hysteria with an equal number of hours of quiet mood music. Also
  4. Most Americans are complete morons when it comes to history.

I was sick of Alex Jones when he was running his public access channel here in Austin; and he should still be doing that channel, because his rants haven’t changed. Generally to warrant a larger audience, your communications skills and message should improve. His is the same, old, tired Schtick. Piers handled him perfectly. “Oh, would you like more rope? Here, let me get that for you.”

On the other hand, everyone who is pro-gun simply skips over the parts of the Second Amendment they don’t want to address. If the State of Texas drafted every 18 to 21 year old tomorrow and started a militia as it was intended by the founders, there would be screaming all across the state. But that is what the 2nd establishes.

The fact that the federal government already limits access to other military grade weapons, and so can limit access to the ‘assault rifles’ as well if it so desires. Want a semi-auto (that fires more accurately, I might add) anyway? Buy one that isn’t dressed up to look sexy and sell to wanna-be soldiers; or become one. A soldier, that is. Satisfying a need for defense (the finding in the Heller case) can be defined as “shall-issue” permitting for a weapon. this doesn’t mean there can’t be required training to go along with that permitting. It doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the exact type of weapon you want. Pro-gunners want this to be about banning all guns, because they win if that’s the argument. It’s not the argument being advanced.

I get it, no one wants to be defenseless. If these gunnuts (and I mean that in the kindest way) want to have 50, 100 guns, machine guns, rocket launchers, tanks, whatever; it’s completely within reason for the government to turn around (local, state and/or federal) and say “OK, if you want those weapons, insist on having those weapons, you will be trained and certified to carry those weapons, and you will do it in the following prescribed manner.” There is nothing in the Constitution that limits the cities and states from creating militias of their own and requiring all citizens to participate and be trained. No matter what historically the Second Amendment meant to have a militia. We aren’t living in history, we live in the here and now.

Facebook status backdated to the blog.

On Evolution, Science and Healthcare

Dear Corporate Leaders; It’s called “evolution”

Nothing, not even viruses *just happened* (never mind that the existence of life is not what evolution describes. Perhaps life is everywhere in the universe, just waiting for the right conditions to spring up. No one knows) evolution describes, and is the only explanation that fits, how the many forms of life on this planet came to exist. It’s a lot like gravity. It doesn’t depend on your acceptance or belief to function as it does; it just does. If you understand it you can create things like animal companions that meet specific needs (in that sense breeders have understood evolution for centuries) and modern medicine, including drugs like the morning after pill that prevents conception (the myth that The Pope declares begins life) and hormone drugs that treat various feminine diseases as well as preventing pregnancy.

…and anything that calls itself a *health care plan* should include those drugs.

The government should handle all parts of public health. Vaccinations, regular examinations, emergency care, maintenance drugs, etc. We,the people, should take back control of our government from the MIC, and force it to spend the taxes it already takes from us, on US. There is more than enough (we’d all get tax breaks, even) to pay for the kinds of services that Europe already enjoys. They have better healthcare in Mexico than we do here. If the wealthy want Cadillac service, they should be allowed to purchase it on their own. Public health should not be left to the whims of the individual and the budgets of the poor.

Evolution, as I said, is not subject to belief. My belief, your belief, the Pope’s belief. It is a process that occurs whether we will it or not. God has no hand in it, because if god interferes with the real world, that interference can be measured. No such influence has ever been detected. Spinoza might have a point (and Einstein loved Spinoza) about the universe being god, but that god is not the god that most people believe in. Humans evolved from earlier (I won’t say lower because that’s another misunderstanding) forms of hominids which we have documented in the fossil record. It’s simply the way it IS. If we ever have a hope of retaining our (imagined) place in the world, we are going to have to embrace science.

I’ll never understand libertarians who deride government and their ability to use force; and at the same time trumpet corporations while they use force. It is the same force, exercised by the same types of legal fictions, one (The Government) creating the other (The Corporation) If libertarians are opposed to coercion, force and fraud then they necessarily must place both corporations and government in the same category of *evil which must be stopped*. Just another reason I don’t bother to call myself libertarian anymore.

Public health is *exactly* what the government was formed for, if we’re talking about healthcare. If you care about public health, you should care that all individuals get immunized, get regular checkups, and are provided with maintenance medications for ailments. Emergency care requires investments in infrastructure, training and employment of professionals. It realistically requires government oversight.

To not have the government involved in public health is to not have a government at all. Anarchy not minarchy.

(Published herehere and here on Facebook. Two of my most commented upon status updates to date)

Another Abramanation on the Horizon

For some reason I ‘liked’ Star Trek on Facebook (an error I intend to correct shortly) so I was jarred out of a fanciful daydream when this image appeared on my wall.  Yes, that is a nacelle, coming up out of the water.

For those who may not remember, we’ve covered my rejection of Abrams’ work on Star Trek in the past (the label Abramanation is assigned here)  as well as my long term unhappiness with where the franchise has been going dating back to before the series Enterprise was rolled out. This is not a sudden separation from Trek on my part, but a well thought out and gradual withdrawal from the fan scene.  I simply don’t have enough in common with current fans to have an interest in the ins and outs of fandom any longer. 

As the comments followed on the image I was appalled to note this entry;

“If you think about it a submarine is very much like a starship. It makes sense that to hide a space vessel waters like a large ocean or lake. It is completely sealed and pressurized. Why not hide it under water?”

This is why Star Trek and science fiction in general have become so dumbed down. There is absolutely no engineering resemblance between a space vessel designed to hold air in, and a submarine designed to keep water out. Not similar, at all. But to the layman it’s a “woo-woo” moment. “Look, it’s underwater!” (eyeroll) Oh, really.

Before fans of the franchise pop up with objections, I’d like to offer the following list of observations;

  1. I don’t accept the premise that “any Trek is better than no Trek” voiced by some of  the commenters to that thread, and by fans I’ve talked to in the past. I would specifically prefer no Trek to continuing Abramanations, which is ultimately why I no longer refer to myself as a Trekkie or a Trek fan. The franchise has gone somewhere I do not wish to follow.
  2. I don’t “hate” the abramanations. On some levels they are quite enjoyable as most eye candy is; the problem is that Star Trek has never been simply entertainment to me. I don’t become a 20 year fan of things that are simply entertaining. I’m not a fan of Gilligan’s Island, although I laughed while watching nearly every episode. Consequently when Star Trek crossed over into the “just entertainment” category, I stopped being a fan of it. Like it or not, I don’t care.
  3. There are specific problems with every single SF venture that Lindloff and Abrams are involved in; generally it amounts to not paying enough attention to established factual science (like the engineering issue I pointed out previously) not developing believable characters because of lazy story plotting (“Isn’t it cute?”) and not enough research into established canon. When combined, you have a final product that is nearly unwatchable to the technically educated, ridiculous to the trained storyteller, and offensive to the hardcore fan.

This is why there are so many vocal objections to the latest iterations of various franchises that the average popcorn chewer will dismiss as a hater. It’s not hatred to offer valid criticism for what is a weak effort from people who are being well paid (over paid, from my perspective) and provided with lavish budgets to produce what could be very high quality artistic works, if only they took the time (see James Cameron) to do the due diligence that an undertaking of this magnitude requires. 

 In Other Words, promoters of the current Abramanation, don’t ask for opinions if you don’t want opinions.


I finally did see this film edited for television recently (sometime in 2016) I wrote about it here.

For America? That Depends on How You Define America.

The Facebook group For America scrolled across my newsfeed today.   It advertised itself with the demand that you,

“Like if you miss Ronald Reagan.”

Iran-Contra? The S&L meltdown? No, I don’t miss Reagan, because I remember what it was like to live during Reagan’s time (only marginally better than Carter’s time) But the key to understanding “for America” and their linkage to Ronald Reagan is Reagan’s introduction of fundamentalist christianity to the political scene (the code phrase “judeo-christian values”) leading almost directly to the debacle of the last election with prominent elected Republicans seeming incapable of discussing anything other than rape.

…but For America‘s real reason to exist is right their on their front page, repeal Obamacare. Talk about living in the past. And this sham group hopes to trick people into liking their page and all the baggage that brings with an appeal to good-old-dayism. Reagan would be proud.

Facebook status backdated to the blog.

Vice Presidential Debate Breakdown

I still want to know why I have to wait for The Daily Show to get a proper breakdown of news events in the US.

Pretty much sums it up. Then in the second segment;

The Lost Language of Journalism being spoken on modern television. I couldn’t believe it. Martha Raddatz [kisses]

…anyone (I’m looking at you FOX) who watched that debate and didn’t see that Biden won it hands down, and that the moderator was sharp as a tack and willing to take on both sides, is simply lying to themselves. Or as Jon put it;

To sum up FOX’s post-debate coverage; Joe Biden was an angry, demented, abusive, drunk, old crazy person, who mopped the floor with our guy.

Full episode link; http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-october-15-2012-j-k–rowling

….and J.K. Rowling is a shining example of the benefits to making sure that the poorest among us deserve to be cared for.  

DCBBS Archive: The Reason for The Decline

Finally, an answer to Dan’s burning question,

I have been getting a lot of notes lately from old-timers here on the Board that the culture here is deteriorating into partisan name-calling and the like. While many of the newer members might think we are actually a good deal more civil and thought-oriented (and less partisan) than other similar-themed sites they have frequented, those who were accustomed to how good we USED to have it around here are disappointed (and I can’t say that I blame them).

This is about the fifth or sixth time since we opened this board that I have seen us “devolve”. Every time we do, we lose a crop of the Board veterans who can no longer deal with the loss of civility/deeper thought. This is something that has even been discussed here on the Board as the “Golden Age” of the Board devolved into the “Silver Age” to wherever the heck we currently find ourselves. In those discussions we talked about the inevitability of this “de-evolution” as more and more people joined the Board over time. You get a much more representative sample of what’s “out there” when you get a larger slice of the population showing up. So we begin to look more and more like the uber-partisan/knee-jerk world around us. *Sigh*.

Can we do anything about it? I have wondered long and hard about this. It is almost like trying to figure out if you can reverse the decline of society or civilizations. Must the Board go this way?

R. Elisabeth Cornwell at TAM 2012 – Social Networks: Civilizing the Future – Aug 16, 2012

The answer is “yes it has to, and will probably do so in pretty predictable cycles” because it is human nature.

There are, however, solutions. Several of them were offered in that thread; but yes, it requires changing the software this board runs on. She discusses the solution that RDF uses on their website in the video, and their terms and conditions are posted here.

Terms and Conditions

PURPOSE, DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS OF USE

Welcome to RichardDawkins.net. We have updated our Conditions of Use and all users are being asked to indicate their acceptance of them before commenting on or creating a discussion, or when registering. Please read the following carefully and, if you agree to abide by the Conditions set out here, check ‘Accept Terms and Conditions’ on the registration or edit profile page. If you don’t agree, you will still be able to read articles, discussions and comments on the site but you will not be able to post comments or start discussions yourself.

Purpose of RichardDawkins.net

RichardDawkins.net is intended to be a site where there is lively discussion of issues relevant to science, reason and unreason; where robust disagreement, provided it is intelligently argued, is welcome; where threads stay broadly on-topic (where ‘on-topic’ means ‘of relevance to reason, unreason and science, not necessarily the specific topic of the thread in question’); which acts as a showcase for reason and science; and where rational people can be confident of consistently intelligent interactions and stimulating ideas.

In a community of ideas, there will always be disagreements and friendly banter. We encourage robust discussion, but please remember that we do not want threads to be derailed by private chat, insults or prolonged off-topic exchanges. Nor do we want contributors to be subjected to bullying or abuse, or the cause of reason and science to be brought into disrepute.

The following Conditions of Use are meant to allow freedom of discussion in an open, civilised manner, no different from the kind of atmosphere that would prevail in a work meeting or social event with face-to-face interactions. If action is required against any user who is in breach of these Conditions, we will do our best to act fairly and impartially, but all decisions and judgements are at our absolute discretion.

Finally, a word about freedom of speech. In a very real sense of the term, RichardDawkins.net is a publisher. If we were writing a comment to a traditional publisher, such as a newspaper, we would not complain that our freedom of speech had been curtailed if it were not published. We would simply accept the editor’s decision. RichardDawkins.net does not operate a ‘positive editing’ system of that kind, where comments only appear once they have been approved: on this website comments appear automatically, without being seen by us first. Nor will we be regularly patrolling the site on the look-out for offending posts: that is why we are asking you to agree to abide by these Conditions of Use and also to alert us if you see comments which do not. Nevertheless, that does not mean we are under any obligation – legal, moral or otherwise – to permit everything submitted by users to remain on the site. If we become aware of comments that we consider to be inappropriate or to undermine what our website is for, we reserve the right to remove them and take any other action we deem appropriate. (Please note that we will never remove comments simply because they challenge ideas, whether that’s atheism or evolution or anything else that most people on this site are in agreement about.)

Some users may not share our vision for RichardDawkins.net or approve of the approach that we are setting out here, and that is of course their right. Nevertheless, it is this vision and this approach that will form the basis of how we manage this site.

Disclaimer

The posting of an article, video or other item on this website does not mean that RichardDawkins.net endorses its content: items are selected purely for their relevance and their potential to stimulate interesting discussion. We are responsible only for content posted by us or by someone authorised by us to post items on our behalf. We are not responsible for the content of other websites, or for comments posted by users. We are not able to read every comment that is posted on this site, so if you see something that requires our intervention please alert us to it promptly. If we become aware of inappropriate comments posted by users, we reserve the right to modify or remove them, but not doing so does not imply that we endorse or approve of them.

Conditions of Use

1. No abuse. Let’s try and stay polite to each other. Obviously no intimidation or bullying, and if it does get a bit frank and heated, our language should be no more than a normal civilised person would use in face-to-face encounters. If it is not something that would be accepted at a face-to-face social gathering or meeting, then it is not acceptable here. When disagreements occur we therefore expect you to 1) Focus on the ideas and argue against the individual(s) rationally, or 2) Report individuals if they are in breach of the Conditions of Use, or 3) Ignore rude comments and refuse to escalate the situation. Pseudonyms should not become a licence for gratuitous rudeness.

2. No bores. Hard to define, but we all know them when we encounter them. The following list is not exhaustive. People who have one particular drum that they just keep on banging over and over again. People who persistently abuse and insult other users. People who treat the site as though it were their own personal blog or playground. People who seem to think a modicum of courtesy is a sign of weakness. People who snarl and spit as soon as anyone disagrees with them.

3. No sock puppets. Bores and other offenders who have been banned often try to come back under another name. This is strictly forbidden. In order to guard against this, we have to forbid multiple user accounts. If you already have more than one account, perhaps because you used to use an alias but now post using your real name, please contact support@richarddawkins.net so that they can be amalgamated. Don’t forget to let us know which of your user names you want to keep.

4. No identity-sharing. For the same kind of reason, please don’t let other people use your RichardDawkins.net name and please take care to keep your login details private.

5. No chat-rooming. Please keep comments broadly relevant to the topic that heads the thread, or at least relevant to the subjects of reason and science. It’s a good idea (and it usually happens this way) for threads to begin by being strictly on the topic of the heading article. If interesting side issues naturally develop later, that’s fine too. But please don’t let threads become derailed into chat-room gossip. If that starts to happen, please remove the discussion to a more appropriate medium elsewhere, e.g. IM or email.

6. No spam. That includes commercial advertising, anything posted multiple times on one or more threads, and the habitual posting of material that has simply been lifted from other sites in order to make a point.

7. No crime. Obviously no promotion of illegal activity. No libellous comments. No uploads of or links to any material containing viruses, worms, trojans, spyware etc. No soliciting of personal information from or about underage users, and no unwanted sexual attention towards users of any age.

8. No trolling. Trolling includes any activity intended to disrupt the site, derail discussion or inflame personal conflict. It doesn’t include controversial posts that challenge the prevailing philosophy of the majority of visitors to the site. These are welcome, if they are intelligently argued.

If you see comments that are in breach of these conditions, please do not respond to them, but bring them to the attention of the Moderators by using the link at the foot of each post to flag them. You will need to be logged in to do this. If you wish to report a comment which you think may be libellous, please email libel@richarddawkins.net

…having read over them, I can state flatly that a good number of people who post here (including me, but I’ll find out on that point. Probably soon) would not survive there. Still, it does call up the points that I and others made in that other thread; that to maintain civility you have to be willing to ostracize the troublemakers. Civility will not survive any other way.


I can appreciate your sincerity here Griz, but I feel that you (and Dan) do not actually understand the problem. This is not an issue of censorship, it’s an issue of shaming and community policing, both being required tools if civility is going to be maintained. It’s (almost completely) pointless to flag posts in these forums. I almost never bother to do it anymore. Trech’s page of dicks being changed to links is the only instance that I can remember in which flagging a post produced a valid outcome (and personally, I was not offended by Trech producing proof for his argument as it was demanded of him to do) other than the obvious spam that does seem to disappear very quickly, which I do thank you for. There are members of these boards who’s sole existence here is to shut down conversation; I have engaged in the pastime myself, I can vouch for the ease of this being done. There are members here who live to simply grandstand and name call, and again, guilty as charged on occasion (proposed genocide is something I think I can call a person names over, and will do so again as the need arises) and there are bores here by the dozen who have one argument and one argument only, and they repeat those arguments until they are the only person left on the thread and call themselves winners.

Chaos is what we have here; and if that wasn’t the goal, then something has to be changed to bring some semblance of order.

I agree with Kath, that the list of moderators should be culled to active people on the boards, and I would add that they either have to be given teeth to effect the chaos, or Dan should stop lamenting about the state of the boards. This is a wild social human interaction, it’s what you get when you don’t give the actors tools to alter the relationships, and aren’t willing to make those alterations yourselves.

Tyrius, people who post to a thread with the response that the conversation is meaningless are generally threatened by the content of the conversation; the content of your posts should not make you feel that way, if you are asking me for an opinion. Dan’s question was never answered by someone who could draw on a valid sociological argument. If you took the time to watch the video, you would have gotten the reason for this thread and the answer to Dan’s question.

The Wayback Machine Archive


Editor’s Note: July 26, 2019. While in the process of cleaning up old drafts and reformatting posts for the relocated website/blog, I discovered that I had tracked down and copied the forum rules for the now defunct RichardDawkins.net forums as well as text and links to a more than a few posts I had written on the BBS, so I have added the text for the rules to this post. I will be backdating and adding other material as I discover it and get it cleaned up to my satisfaction.

Best April Fish Joke, Ever

Spotted on Scientific American, now available only on the Wayback Machine if you know how to look for it. I, dear reader, am just the kind of geek you are looking for to find this kind of useless false information and re-expose it to the light of day.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody’s ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

It appears that they have republished this tidbit annually since 2005.

Facebook status update backdated to the blog. SA has published this article annually (as far as I can tell) every year since 2005 (it is 4/5/2018 now) Good satire never gets old, especially when half the American population still rejects evolution.