5 ms·

Oh, and while you're at it, Wikileaks? I'd love to see leaks from Russia, China, UK, Japan etc. You've been picking on the US for far too long; these other coun

by BCM43 16y ago

Oh, and while you're at it, Wikileaks? I'd love to see leaks from Russia, China, UK, Japan etc. You've been picking on the US for far too long; these other countries are no angels either. Are you offering to leak this information? Remember, they do not break into US systems to get this information. They need someone to leak it to them.

yters 16y ago
Plus, a couple of those countries will wipe Assange and his organization off the face of the earth. Assange is only picking on the US because we're more civil. It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. Really, Assange is merely perpetrating a sophisticated form of bullying.
- rtra 16y ago
  Do you have reasons to suspect that wikileaks has withheld leaked non-US documents?
- hugh3 16y ago
  True. Remember Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB officer and Putin critic who somehow wound up with a lethal dose of polonium 210 while in Britain? Just you try leaking documents embarrassing to the Russian government, Mr Assange. Speaking of which, why haven't I heard anything about Russia in this leak? Surely there must be some interesting diplomatic cables into and out of Russia?
- archgoon 16y ago
  > It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. This would perhaps be a reasonable argument if they _never_ picked on Islam (I assume that's what you were referring to). This would indicate some actual fear of reprisals. However, this isn't actually the case. Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, and most other figures have all 'picked on' Islam at one time or another. PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_exist_and_moham.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_ex... http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women... Dawkins: http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-islam-carries-the-death-penalty http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-... Hitchens: http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitchens-about-islam-in-britain-after-77-12 http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitche... The first comment on the Hitchen's link shows some of the issues inherent when you criticize a minority religion (with respect to audience), however. Namely, you get the nasty anti-(legal)-immigrant crowd thinking you support them, or at least provide ammunition for them (conveniently ignoring arguments against their own beliefs). Granted, they haven't picked on the Aztecs to my knowledge. They might be afraid of them. My apologies for going OT.
  - yters 16y ago
    Yeah, that's good they sometimes point out the flaws in Islam. But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal. And insofar as the atheists' goals are humanitarian they should join forces with the most humanitarian ideologies, which tend to be certain religions. The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an enabler is a different debate). Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of puppy dogs.
    - archgoon 16y ago
      >But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal. You have no evidence that's why they post more about Christianity. I have already presented several other explanations. To be explicit it could be because they don't want to feed biases against minority groups, they might want to target something which is a visible problem (evolution denial in the states), they might want to target the beliefs of people who have power to abuse (local officials), they might want to clean up their own house before they figure out how to deal with other countries and religions which they are less familiar with, etc. Furthermore PZ Myers _has_ received death threats from Christians, so the idea that all Christians are just a bunch of friendly folks who would never hurt a fly, is absurd (though a lot of Christians do commonly make this argument). If you're making yourself a target, you expose yourself to every nutcase in the country. > Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of puppy dogs. What do the Nazi's and Communists have to do with this?
      - yters 16y ago
        This sentence: "The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an enabler is a different debate)." Also, Christianity is the least problematic of all major religions, and most in line with the agenda of humanist atheists, per its explicit laws about the best way of living. Those who don't follow the laws are hard pressed to claim the title "Christian." So, it is disingenuous and ineffective to target Christians. Target ideologies that explicitly make anti-humanitarian claims. That is most in line with the atheists' claim that religion is anti-humanitarian.

by BCM43 16y ago

yters 16y ago

Plus, a couple of those countries will wipe Assange and his organization off the face of the earth. Assange is only picking on the US because we're more civil. It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. Really, Assange is merely perpetrating a sophisticated form of bullying.

rtra 16y ago
Do you have reasons to suspect that wikileaks has withheld leaked non-US documents?
hugh3 16y ago
True. Remember Alexander Litvinenko, the former KGB officer and Putin critic who somehow wound up with a lethal dose of polonium 210 while in Britain? Just you try leaking documents embarrassing to the Russian government, Mr Assange. Speaking of which, why haven't I heard anything about Russia in this leak? Surely there must be some interesting diplomatic cables into and out of Russia?
archgoon 16y ago
> It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. This would perhaps be a reasonable argument if they _never_ picked on Islam (I assume that's what you were referring to). This would indicate some actual fear of reprisals. However, this isn't actually the case. Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, and most other figures have all 'picked on' Islam at one time or another. PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_exist_and_moham.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/11/allah_does_not_ex... http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/islam_hates_women... Dawkins: http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-islam-carries-the-death-penalty http://vodpod.com/watch/1959627-richard-dawkins-apostasy-in-... Hitchens: http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitchens-about-islam-in-britain-after-77-12 http://sacredcanons.com/islam-and-atheism/christopher-hitche... The first comment on the Hitchen's link shows some of the issues inherent when you criticize a minority religion (with respect to audience), however. Namely, you get the nasty anti-(legal)-immigrant crowd thinking you support them, or at least provide ammunition for them (conveniently ignoring arguments against their own beliefs). Granted, they haven't picked on the Aztecs to my knowledge. They might be afraid of them. My apologies for going OT.
- yters 16y ago
  Yeah, that's good they sometimes point out the flaws in Islam. But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal. And insofar as the atheists' goals are humanitarian they should join forces with the most humanitarian ideologies, which tend to be certain religions. The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an enabler is a different debate). Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of puppy dogs.
  - archgoon 16y ago
    >But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal. You have no evidence that's why they post more about Christianity. I have already presented several other explanations. To be explicit it could be because they don't want to feed biases against minority groups, they might want to target something which is a visible problem (evolution denial in the states), they might want to target the beliefs of people who have power to abuse (local officials), they might want to clean up their own house before they figure out how to deal with other countries and religions which they are less familiar with, etc. Furthermore PZ Myers _has_ received death threats from Christians, so the idea that all Christians are just a bunch of friendly folks who would never hurt a fly, is absurd (though a lot of Christians do commonly make this argument). If you're making yourself a target, you expose yourself to every nutcase in the country. > Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of puppy dogs. What do the Nazi's and Communists have to do with this?
    - yters 16y ago
      This sentence: "The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an enabler is a different debate)." Also, Christianity is the least problematic of all major religions, and most in line with the agenda of humanist atheists, per its explicit laws about the best way of living. Those who don't follow the laws are hard pressed to claim the title "Christian." So, it is disingenuous and ineffective to target Christians. Target ideologies that explicitly make anti-humanitarian claims. That is most in line with the atheists' claim that religion is anti-humanitarian.