| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"LP" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2003 03:57:12 AM |
| Object: |
A Realistic Look at September 11th |
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
A Skeptical Look at September 11th
http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-09/9-11.html
How We Can Defeat Terrorism by Reacting to It More Rationally
At the one-year anniversary, we examine reactions to the September 11,
2001, attacks in the context of other causes of premature deaths. An
objective of terrorism is to multiply damage by inducing irrational
fears in the broad population. One defense is to learn to evaluate
such situations more objectively.
Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human beings might be expected to value each life, and each death,
equally. We each face numerous hazards-war, disease, homicide,
accidents, natural disasters-before succumbing to "natural" death.
Some premature deaths shock us far more than others. Contrasting with
the 2,800 fatalities in the World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11,
2001 (9/11), we barely remember the 20,000 Indian earthquake victims
earlier in 2001. Here, we argue that the disproportionate reaction to
9/11 was as damaging as the direct destruction of lives and property.
Americans can mitigate future terrorism by learning to respond more
objectively to future malicious acts. We do not question the visceral
fears and responsible precautions taken during the hours and days
following 9/11, when there might have been even worse attacks. But, as
the first anniversary of 9/11 approaches, our nation's priorities
remain radically torqued toward homeland defense and fighting
terrorism at the expense of objectively greater societal needs. As we
obsessively and excessively beef up internal security and try to
dismantle terrorist groups worldwide, Americans actually feed the
terrorists' purposes.
Every month, including September 2001, the U.S. highway death toll
exceeds fatalities in the WTC, Pentagon, and four downed airliners
combined. Just like the New York City firefighters and restaurant
workers, last September's auto crash victims each had families,
friends, critical job responsibilities, and valued positions in their
churches and communities. Their surviving children, also, were left
without one parent, with shattered lives, and much poorer than the
9/11 victims' families, who were showered with 1.5 million dollars,
per fatality, from the federal government alone. The 9/11 victims died
from malicious terrorism, arguably compounded by poor intelligence,
sloppy airport security, and other failed procedures we imagined were
protecting us. While few of September's auto deaths resulted from
malice, neither were they "natural" deaths: most also resulted from
individual, corporate, and societal choices about road safety
engineering, enforcement of driving-while-drunk laws, safe car design,
and so on.
A Lack of Balance
Why does 9/11 remain our focus rather than the equally vast carnage on
the nation's highways or Indian earthquake victims? Some say, "Oh, it
was a natural disaster and nothing could be done, while 9/11 was a
malicious attack." Yet better housing in India could have saved
thousands. As for malice, where is our concern for the 15,000
Americans who die annually by homicide? Apparently, the death toll
doesn't matter, not if people die all at once, not even if they die by
malicious intent. We focus on 9/11, of course, because these attacks
were terroristic and were indelibly imprinted on our consciousness by
round-the-clock news coverage. Our apprehension was then amplified
when just a half dozen people died by anthrax. Citizens apparently
support the nation's sudden, massive shift in priorities since 9/11.
Here, we ask "Why?"
Suppose we had reacted to 9/11 as we did to last September's auto
deaths. That wouldn't have lessened the destroyed property, lost lives
and livelihoods, and personal bereavement of family and associates of
the WTC victims. But no billions would have been needed to prop up
airlines. Local charities wouldn't have suffered as donations were
redirected to New York City. Congress might have enacted prescription
drug benefits, as it was poised to do before 9/11. Battalions of
National Guardsmen needn't have left their jobs to provide a visible
"presence" in airports. The nation might not have slipped into
recession, with resulting losses to businesses, workers, and consumers
alike. And the FBI might still be focusing on rampant white-collar
crime (think Enron) rather than on terrorism. While some modest
measures (e.g., strengthening cockpit doors) were easy to implement,
may have inhibited some "copycat" crimes, and may even lessen future
terrorism, we believe that much of the expensive effort is
ineffective, too costly to sustain, or wholly irrelevant.
Some leaders got it right when they implored Americans after 9/11 to
return to their daily routines, for otherwise "the terrorists will
win." Unfortunately, such exhortations seemed aimed at rescuing the
travel industry rather than articulating a broad vision of how to
respond to terrorism. We advocate that most of us more fully "return
to normal life." We suggest that the economic and emotional damage
unleashed by 9/11, which touched the lives of all Americans, resulted
mostly from our own reactions to 9/11 and the anthrax scare, rather
than from the objective damage. We recognize that our assertion may
seem inappropriate to some readers, and we are under no illusion that
natural human reactions to the televised terrorism could have been
wholly averted and redirected. We, too, gaped in horror at images of
crashing airplanes and we contributed to WTC victims. But from within
the skeptical community there could emerge a more objective, rational
alternative to post-9/11. Citizens could learn to react more
constructively to future terrorism and to balance the terrorist threat
against other national priorities. It could be as important to combat
our emotional vulnerability to terrorism as to attack Al Qaeda.
Terrorism, by design, evokes disproportionate responses to antisocial
acts by a malicious few. By minimizing our negative reactions, we
might contribute to undermining terrorists' goals as effectively as by
waging war on them or by mounting homeland defenses. We do not "blame
the victims" for the terrorists' actions. Rather, we seek that we
citizens, the future targets of terrorism, be empowered. As Franklin
D. Roosevelt famously said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear
itself." We can help ensure that terrorists don't win if we can
minimize our fears and react more constructively to future terrorism.
We don't suggest that this option is easy or will suffice alone. It
may not even be possible. But human beings often best succeed by being
rational when their emotions, however tenacious and innate, have let
them down.
Death and Statistics
It is a maxim that one needless or untimely death is one too many. So
20,000 victims should be 20,000 times worse. But our minds don't work
that way. Given the national outpouring of grief triggered by the
estimated 6,500 WTC deaths, one might have expected celebration in
late October when it was realized that fewer than half that many had
died. But there were no headlines like "3,000 WTC Victims Are Alive
After All!" The good news was virtually ignored. Weeks later, many -
including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - continued to speak of
"over 5,000 deaths" on 9/11.
To researchers in risk perception, this is natural human behavior. We
are evolved from primitive nomads and cave dwellers who never knew,
personally, more than the few hundred people in their locales. Until
just a few generations ago, news from other lands arrived sporadically
via sailors; most people lived and died within a few miles of where
they were born. Tragedies invariably concerned a known, nearby person.
With the globalization of communication, the world-not just our local
valley-has entered our consciousness. But our brains haven't evolved
to relate, personally, to each of 6 billion people. Only when the
media singles out someone-perhaps an "average layperson" or maybe a
tragic exception like JonBenet Ramsey-do our hearts and minds connect.
When an airliner crashes, and reporters focus on a despairing victims'
spouse or on the last cellular phone words of a doomed traveler, our
brains don't think statistically. We imagine ourselves in that
airplane seat, or driving to the airport counseling center when our
loved one's plane is reported missing. Actually, 30,000 U.S.
commercial flights occur each day. In 2001, except for September 11th
and November 12th (when an airliner crashed in Queens, New York,
killing more passengers and crew than in the four 9/11 crashes
combined), no scheduled, U.S. commercial air trips resulted in a
single passenger fatality. Indeed, worldwide airline accidents in
2001-including 9/11-killed fewer passengers than during an average
year. But statistics can't compete with images of emergency workers
combing a crash site for body parts with red lights flashing. We are
gripped by fear as though the tragedy happened in our own
neighborhood, and another might soon happen again.
Some responses to 9/11 were rational. Soon after jumbo jets were used
as flying bombs, workers in landmark skyscrapers might reasonably have
feared that their building could be next. With radical Muslims
preaching that Americans must be killed, it might behoove us to avoid
conspicuous or symbolic gatherings like Times Square on New Year's Eve
or the Super Bowl. Surely disaster managers must plug security
loopholes that could permit thousands or millions more to be killed.
But when police chiefs of countless middle American communities beef
up security for their anonymous buildings, and search fans entering
hundreds of sports fields to watch games of little note, official
reactions to terrorism have run amok. To imagine that Al Qaeda's next
target might be the stadium in, say, Ames, Iowa, is far-fetched
indeed.
Finite Resources, Infinite Alarm
Americans' WTC fears only grew when six people died from mailed
anthrax. Postal officials patiently explained that public risks were
minimal. But millions donned gloves to open their mail or gingerly
threw out unopened mail; post offices rejected letters lacking return
addresses; urgent mail was embargoed; and for weeks the national
dialog centered on one of the least hazards we face. An NPR radio host
asked the Postmaster General if the whole U.S. Postal System might be
shut down, despite expert opinion that-in a world faced with diabetes,
salmonella poisoning, and AIDS-anthrax will remain (even as a
biological weapon) a bit player as a cause of death. Its sole potency
is in the context of terrorism: if, by mailing lethal powder to
someone, the news media choose to broadcast hysteria into every home
so that the very future of our postal system is questioned, then the
terrorist has deployed a powerful weapon indeed. But his power would
be negated if we were to react to the anthrax in proportion to its
modest potential for harm.
Research on risk perception has shown that our reactions to hazards
don't match the numerical odds. We fear events (like airliner crashes)
that kill many at once much more than those that kill one at a time
(car accidents). We fear being harmed unknowingly (by carcinogens) far
more than by things we feel we control ourselves (driving or smoking).
We fear unfamiliar technologies (nuclear power) and terrorism far more
than prosaic hazards (household falls). Such disproportionate
attitudes shape our actions as public citizens. Accordingly
governments spend vastly more per life saved to mitigate highly feared
hazards (e.g., on aircraft safety) than on "everyday" risks (e.g.,
food poisoning). Risk analysts commonly accept, with neutral
objectivity, the disparity between lay perceptions and expert risk
statistics. Sometimes it is justifiable to go beyond raw statistics.
Depending on our values, we might be more concerned about unfair
deaths beyond an individual's control than self-inflicted harm. We
might worry more about deaths of children than of elderly people with
limited life expectancies. We might dread lingering, painful deaths
more than sudden ones. We might be more troubled about "needless"
deaths, with no compensating offsets, than about fatalities in the
name of a larger good (e.g., of soldiers or police). Or, in all these
cases, we might not.
Why should terrorism command our exceptional attention? That the 9/11
terrorists maliciously attacked the symbolic and actual seats of our
economic and military power (WTC/Wall Street and the Pentagon) should
concern us if we truly think that future attacks might destroy our
society. But who believes that? Government responses seem directed
mostly at stopping future similar attacks . . . which returns us full
circle to the question: why should that have become our primary
national goal, at the sacrifice of tens of billions of dollars, of
some of our civil liberties, of our travelling convenience, and of
many of our pre-9/11 priorities?
Instead of rationally apportioning funds to the worst or most unfair
societal predicaments, homeland security budgets soar. Nearly every
airport administrator, city emergency management director, mayor,
legislator, school district supervisor, tourist attraction manager,
and plant operations foreman felt compelled after 9/11 to "cover their
asses" by visibly enhancing their facility's security. Superfluous
barricades were erected, search equipment purchased, and guards hired.
Postage rates and delivery delays increase as envelopes are searched
for anthrax. Even the governor of West Virginia announced a "West
Virginia Watch" program; while some vigilance in that state does no
harm, it is unlikely that Wheeling is high on Osama bin Laden's target
list.
Meanwhile, programs unrelated to "homeland security" suffer. Finite
medical resources were diverted to comforting people that their flu
symptoms weren't anthrax . . . or testing to see if they were.
Charitable funds that would have nurtured the homeless flowed,
instead, to wealthy families of deceased Wall Street traders. Funds
for education and pollution control go instead to "securing" public
buildings and events. Billions of extra tax dollars are spent on
military operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than on
enhancing American productivity. If we truly believe in "life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness" and that each life is precious, we must
resist selfish forces that would take advantage of our fears and
squander our energies and fiscal resources on overblown security
enhancements.
Many say that spending for extra security can do no harm. But there is
harm when politicians act on views, like those of a New Yorker who
earlier this year disparaged complaints about airport queues, saying,
"I hope that they will be inconvenienced, and will always be
inconvenienced, because we should never forget the 5,000 [sic] who
died." "Inconvenience" sounds innocuous, but it means lost time, lost
money, lost productivity, as well as increased frustration and
cynicism. Disproportionate expenditures on marginal security efforts
take attention, time, and resources away from other more productive
enterprises. Moreover, our civil liberties are eroded by the
involuntary nature of our "sacrifices." When a person irrationally
fears crowded elevators and takes the stairs instead, only that person
suffers the inconvenience of their personal response. But when
everyone, fearful or not, is forced to suffer because of the fears of
others, then such measures become tyrannical: we should expect
rational deliberation and justifications by our leaders before
accepting them. But in the aftermath of 9/11, tens of billions of
dollars were immediately reallocated with little public debate.
Skeptics might well question our society's acquiescence to popular
hysteria and proactively challenge our leaders to balance the
expenditures of our resources.
Misperceptions of Risk
Consider some misperceptions of risk. Many news headlines just before
9/11 concerned shark attacks and the disappearance of Chandra Levy, an
extreme distortion of serious societal issues (only ten people
annually are killed by sharks worldwide). We can laugh at, or bemoan,
the triviality of the media. But such stories reflect our own
illogical concerns. If, in allocating funds among different hazards,
we deliberately choose to value the lives of Manhattan skyscraper
office workers, postal employees, or airline frequent flyers more than
we value the lives of agricultural workers or miners, it is a
conscious, informed choice. But it is rarely objectivity that informs
such choices. In order to help laypeople and leaders to put our
options into perspective, skeptics, teachers, and journalists alike
have a responsibility to put the objective past and potential threats
from terrorism into contexts that ordinary people can relate to.
Let's compare 9/11 with other past and potential causes of mass death.
Note that we generally can't compare prevention costs with lives
saved; at best, we can compare expenditures with lives not saved. For
example, we can compare the cost of air traffic control with midair
collision fatalities, but we can only guess at the toll without any
such air traffic control.
9/11 deaths are similar to monthly U.S. traffic fatalities. Whatever
total private/public funds are spent annually, per life saved, on
improved highway and motor vehicle safety, alcohol-while-driving
prevention efforts, etc., it hardly approaches homeland security
budgets.
The 9/11 fatalities were several to ten times fewer than annual deaths
from falls (in the home or workplace), or from suicide, or from
homicide. One can question the effectiveness of specific safety
programs, counseling efforts, or laws; but, clearly, comparatively
paltry sums are spent on programs that would further reduce falls,
suicides, and murders.
In autumn 2001, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) predicted that
20,000 Americans would die from complications of influenza during the
then-upcoming winter, most of which could be prevented if susceptible
people were vaccinated. The CDC advisory was typically buried inside
newspapers whose banner headlines dealt with the anthrax attacks,
which killed just a few people.
Twice as many people died in the worst U.S. flood (stemming from the
1900 Galveston hurricane) as at the WTC. Floods and earthquakes are
major killers abroad (each of ten disasters killed over 10,000 people,
and a few over 100,000, during the last three decades, chiefly in
Asia) but are minor killers in modern America. Hurricane Andrew did
great physical damage even though fatalities were few. What are
sensible expenditures for research in meteorology and seismology, for
mandatory enhancement of building codes and redevelopment, and for
other measures that would mitigate natural disasters?
The 9/11 fatalities are just 1.5 percent of those in the nation's
worst epidemic (half a million died from flu in 1918), and also just
1.5 percent of the annual U.S. cancer fatalities. We have waged a
"war" on cancer, at the expense of research on other less feared but
deadly diseases; this war's success is equivocal (five-year
survivability after detection is up, but so are cancer death
rates-though mainly due to decades-old changes in smoking habits).
Where should "homeland security" expenditures rank against medical
expenditures?
Impacts by kilometer-sized asteroids are extremely rare, but one could
send civilization into a new Dark Ages. The annualized American
fatality rate is about 5 percent of the WTC fatalities, although such
a cosmic impact has only 1/100th of 1 percent chance of happening
during the twenty-first century. Just a couple million dollars are now
spent annually to search for threatening asteroids. Should we spend
many billions to build a planetary defense shield, which would
statistically be in proportion to what we now spend on homeland
security and the war on terrorism? Might the threat to our
civilization's very existence raise the stakes above even the
terrorist threat?
To us, these comparisons suggest that the nation's post-9/11
expenditures have been lopsidedly large, and that a balanced approach
would "give back" some funds to reduce deaths from falls, suicide,
murder, highway accidents, natural disasters (including even asteroid
impacts), malnutrition, and preventable or curable diseases . . . and
give back our civil liberties, and just the plain pleasures of life,
such as the arts and humanities, exploration, and national parks. And
if truly effective means to end wars could be found, they would be
especially worthy of funds, given the death toll from twentieth
century wars. Before homeland security becomes dominated by vested
bureaucracies and constituencies, there may yet be time to question
its dominant role in our priorities.
We advocate shifting toward objective cost-benefit analyses and
equitable evaluation of the relative costs of saving human lives. Of
course, subjective judgements have some validity beyond strict
adherence to numerical odds. But we need a national dialog to address
these issues dispassionately so that future governmental decisions can
eschew immediate, impulsive reactions. Individual skeptics, in our own
lives, can exemplify sensible choices. Among the many dumb things we
should avoid (e.g., smoking, driving without a seatbelt, or letting
kids play with firearms), we must also avoid driving instead of
flying, acquiescing uncomplainingly to ineffective searches at local
buildings and events, and generally yielding to the new "homeland
security" mania. Clear thinking about risks, rather than saying that
"any improvement in security is worth it," can reduce our societal
vulnerability to terrorism.
One constructive antidote to post-9/11 trauma is to enhance the
information available and to foster sound appreciation, evaluation,
and use of the information. Life is inherently risky, unpredictable,
and subject to things we cannot know...but there are things we do know
and can understand. Rather than scaring people about sharks, serial
killers, and anthrax, the mass media could help people understand the
real risks in their everyday environments and activities. Educational
institutions should help students develop critical skills necessary to
make rational choices. While avoiding intrusions into personal
liberties, government could nevertheless collect and assess
statistical data in those arenas (like air travel) where potential
dangers lurk, concentrating protective efforts and law enforcement
where it is most efficacious.
To conclude, we suggest that most homeland security expenditures,
which in the zero-sum budget game are diverted from other vital
purposes, are terribly expensive and disproportionate to competing
needs for preventing other causes of death and misery in our society.
While prudent, focused improvements in security are called for, the
sheer costs of most security initiatives greatly distort the way we
address the many threats to our individual and collective well-being.
Our greatest vulnerability to terrorism is the persisting, irrational
fear of terrorism that has gripped our country. We must start behaving
like the informed, reasoning beings we profess to be.
.
|
|
| User: "Anthony Neville" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
26 Jul 2003 04:41:08 AM |
|
|
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Tony.
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
"That which is proper to each thing is by nature best and most pleasant for it; for humans,
therefore, the life according to reason is best and most pleasant, since reason more than anything
else IS human. This life therefore is also the happiest." -=Aristotle=- ("The Nicomachean Ethics,"
Book X, Ch. 7)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
26 Jul 2003 12:47:59 PM |
|
|
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious idiots of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nakas" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
26 Jul 2003 04:23:34 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:j9zUa.105572$hV.7855738@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious idiots
of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Don't call him an *****, it was just a question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jesus Christ" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
26 Jul 2003 05:14:52 PM |
|
|
"Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> :
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:j9zUa.105572$hV.7855738@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar
slang here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious
idiots
of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Don't call him an *****, it was just a question.
....Presented angrily and in an argumentative manner.
--
___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______
/\ / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ \ | | ()(_) |
| | \__ /\ | | /\ | |___| |___/ | | /\ |
| | / / \ | | / \ | | |\| \ _ |/ / \ _ |
\_|/\___//(__/ \__/\_//(__/ \___/ | |/| \_/\_/\//(__/(_/
/| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test):
\| Pastor Frank
M. Clark
CaptainKIRKusa1
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony Neville" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
26 Jul 2003 06:33:36 PM |
|
|
"Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> wrote in message news:qjCUa.153160$ye4.104915@sccrnsc01...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:j9zUa.105572$hV.7855738@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious idiots
of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Don't call him an *****, it was just a question.
But I am an ***** to excrement like him. It would be a dereliction
of duty to be otherwise.
Tony.
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
"That which is proper to each thing is by nature best and most pleasant for it; for humans,
therefore, the life according to reason is best and most pleasant, since reason more than anything
else IS human. This life therefore is also the happiest." -=Aristotle=- ("The Nicomachean Ethics,"
Book X, Ch. 7)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
27 Jul 2003 01:01:24 PM |
|
|
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:VdEUa.7518$9f7.870683@news02.tsnz.net...
"Nakas" <nakas@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qjCUa.153160$ye4.104915@sccrnsc01...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:j9zUa.105572$hV.7855738@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious
idiots
of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Don't call him an *****, it was just a question.
But I am an ***** to excrement like him. It would be a dereliction
of duty to be otherwise.
So ***** it is then.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony Neville" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
26 Jul 2003 06:27:07 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:j9zUa.105572$hV.7855738@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious idiots of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Look, you thick, steaming pile of donkey dung, atheism does NOT
equate to being against the war with Iraq, nor does atheism equate
to being for the war. Atheists supported the war and there are other
atheists against it. The topic has NOTHING to do with any religious
crusade against atheists for being atheist, it has nothing to do with
any kind of strained relationship between the Christian community
and we atheists, nor the struggle to keep Church and State separate,
nor the differences between Christians and atheists, and in fact
his posts makes *no* mention of any issue concerning atheism
and theism in regards to Bush and Blair and the war with Iraq! So,
donkey dung, what he posted does not belong here. It belongs in
a political forum where people can politik all they want.
Tony.
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
"That which is proper to each thing is by nature best and most pleasant for it; for humans,
therefore, the life according to reason is best and most pleasant, since reason more than anything
else IS human. This life therefore is also the happiest." -=Aristotle=- ("The Nicomachean Ethics,"
Book X, Ch. 7)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
26 Jul 2003 08:56:53 PM |
|
|
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:G7EUa.7516$9f7.870405@news02.tsnz.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:j9zUa.105572$hV.7855738@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious idiots
of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Look, you thick, steaming pile of donkey dung, atheism does NOT
equate to being against the war with Iraq, nor does atheism equate
to being for the war.
Nor does that fucking matter.
You have precisely *****-all to say what should be posted on this newsgroup,
and what shouldn't.
And who mentioned the war anyway? Learn to read.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony Neville" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
26 Jul 2003 10:22:31 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:FjGUa.122582$xg5.103066@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:G7EUa.7516$9f7.870405@news02.tsnz.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:j9zUa.105572$hV.7855738@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious idiots
of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Look, you thick, steaming pile of donkey dung, atheism does NOT
equate to being against the war with Iraq, nor does atheism equate
to being for the war.
Nor does that fucking matter.
It fucking matters that people confine their fucking posts to fucking
newsgroups that are actually fucking relevant to their fucking posts. I can
only hope that since the blindingly obvious has failed to penetrate your skull,
my liberal use of the word "fucking" might get through by some hitherto
unknown means.
You have precisely *****-all to say what should be posted on this newsgroup,
and what shouldn't.
But I do have something to say, dolt, and I've been saying it. I realise there's
not a damn thing I can do to get people to post their off-topic articles to
suitable newsgroups, but on the bright side (which incidently you lack),
there's *stuff all* the likes of you can do to stop me from kicking up a stink
about it. Isn't usenet just great?
And who mentioned the war anyway? Learn to read.
Hey, you lumpen vat of stupidity, have you ever ventured outside
this thread and seen what maff posts? LP & maff, especially
maff, posts off-topic articles.
Tony.
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
"That which is proper to each thing is by nature best and most pleasant for it; for humans,
therefore, the life according to reason is best and most pleasant, since reason more than anything
else IS human. This life therefore is also the happiest." -=Aristotle=- ("The Nicomachean Ethics,"
Book X, Ch. 7)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
27 Jul 2003 12:52:30 AM |
|
|
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in
news:mAHUa.7549$9f7.875285@news02.tsnz.net:
It fucking matters that people confine their fucking posts to fucking
newsgroups that are actually fucking relevant to their fucking posts.
I can only hope that since the blindingly obvious has failed to
penetrate your skull, my liberal use of the word "fucking" might get
through by some hitherto unknown means.
Dude, it's fucking Usenet, not a fucking business fucking meeting.
*****, *****, ***** ;p
Put away the badge, Officer; netcoppin' doesn't work very well 'round here.
--
Dr. Smartass
BAAWA Knight of Staves -- a.a. #1939
For Father Flanigan: Don't Pet the Small Stuff
Everyone Else: Don't Sweat the Small Stuff
"I'm done for."
--Adlai Stevenson, when told that he had all the thinking people
on his side for his presidential campaign.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wolf333" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
26 Jul 2003 11:13:06 PM |
|
|
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:mAHUa.7549$9f7.875285@news02.tsnz.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:FjGUa.122582$xg5.103066@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:G7EUa.7516$9f7.870405@news02.tsnz.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:j9zUa.105572$hV.7855738@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar
slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious
idiots
of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Look, you thick, steaming pile of donkey dung, atheism does NOT
equate to being against the war with Iraq, nor does atheism equate
to being for the war.
Nor does that fucking matter.
It fucking matters that people confine their fucking posts to fucking
newsgroups that are actually fucking relevant to their fucking posts. I
can
only hope that since the blindingly obvious has failed to penetrate your
skull,
my liberal use of the word "fucking" might get through by some hitherto
unknown means.
Does that mean no more posts about beer, pets, ice cream or music?
You have precisely *****-all to say what should be posted on this
newsgroup,
and what shouldn't.
But I do have something to say, dolt, and I've been saying it. I realise
there's
not a damn thing I can do to get people to post their off-topic articles
to
suitable newsgroups, but on the bright side (which incidently you lack),
there's *stuff all* the likes of you can do to stop me from kicking up a
stink
about it. Isn't usenet just great?
Just kill-file him and get over it.
And who mentioned the war anyway? Learn to read.
Hey, you lumpen vat of stupidity, have you ever ventured outside
this thread and seen what maff posts? LP & maff, especially
maff, posts off-topic articles.
Tony.
http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
"That which is proper to each thing is by nature best and most pleasant
for it; for humans,
therefore, the life according to reason is best and most pleasant, since
reason more than anything
else IS human. This life therefore is also the happiest." -=Aristotle=-
("The Nicomachean Ethics,"
Book X, Ch. 7)
--
_____
"Nothing says 'clown' like a fat, bald guy who enjoys stripping. He sure
fills me with whimsy. Wait, that's not whimsy... that's not whimsy at
all!" - somethingaweful.com
Michael Wolfe
aa # 1912
____
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
27 Jul 2003 02:37:23 AM |
|
|
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:mAHUa.7549$9f7.875285@news02.tsnz.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:FjGUa.122582$xg5.103066@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:G7EUa.7516$9f7.870405@news02.tsnz.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:j9zUa.105572$hV.7855738@twister.austin.rr.com...
"Anthony Neville" <anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote in message
news:q1sUa.7430$9f7.856806@news02.tsnz.net...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar
slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
Well, religious idiots on one side brought us 9/11, and religious
idiots
of
the other bring us an irrational and dangerous response.
Is that enough of fucking relationship for you, *****?
Look, you thick, steaming pile of donkey dung, atheism does NOT
equate to being against the war with Iraq, nor does atheism equate
to being for the war.
Nor does that fucking matter.
It fucking matters that people confine their fucking posts to fucking
newsgroups that are actually fucking relevant to their fucking posts. I
can
only hope that since the blindingly obvious has failed to penetrate your
skull,
my liberal use of the word "fucking" might get through by some hitherto
unknown means.
No, I understood what you were whining about the first time.
You have precisely *****-all to say what should be posted on this
newsgroup,
and what shouldn't.
But I do have something to say, dolt, and I've been saying it.
No, you've been having tantrums. All you've established that you're the only
one here who finds maffs posts objectionable.
I realise there's
not a damn thing I can do to get people to post their off-topic articles
to
suitable newsgroups,
I see, so you have assumed the mantle of USENET TOPIC POLICEMAN? What if I
disagree that the article was off topic? Are you going to arrest me?
but on the bright side (which incidently you lack),
there's *stuff all* the likes of you can do to stop me from kicking up a
stink
about it. Isn't usenet just great?
Whiners can whine, and flamers can flame whiners. It seems to be working
just fine.
And who mentioned the war anyway? Learn to read.
Hey, you lumpen vat of stupidity, have you ever ventured outside
this thread and seen what maff posts?
Ah yes, I think I like the goalposts over there better. No, more to the
right, now back a bit... Perfect!
LP & maff, especially
maff, posts off-topic articles.
According to YOU.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: A Realistic Look at September 11th |
27 Jul 2003 05:07:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:41:08 +1200, "Anthony Neville"
<anthony.neville@paradise.org.nz> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pvf4ivoem1r5n1jvrjvnrcl74kjtmqnr8o@4ax.com...
From Skeptical Enquirer, September 2002
[...]
And how does that screed of [insert choice of extremely vulgar slang
here] you posted relate to atheists and atheism?
This topic is related to atheism in a number of ways.
In general, most atheist appreciate a well though out critical
analysis of any subject that is of worldwide importance. Whether you
agree with the post or not, the points made definitely represent a
critical analysis of the subject.
The lack of critical thinking required by those who believe in
supernatural explanations for the Universe, and the life it contains,
are interesting subjects to many atheist. For these religions to
survive, critical thought must be kept in submission. Many of the
decisions that effect the content and quality of many of the school
systems around the world, are made by educators who cling to these
supernatural explanation for things. Whenever these supernatural
explanation are accepted, critical thinking must be given a back seat.
Nearly all atheist believe that critical thinking skills need to be in
the forefront of any system of education. This is why I consider
articles that promote critical thought to be of potential interest to
atheists.
A good percentage of the posts made in alt.atheism are concerned
with religions and their associated irrational behaviors.
As mentioned by Denis Loubet, the 9-11 tragedies exemplify the
irrational nature of these religious behaviors. Articles dealing with
irrational behaviors associated with the 9-11 tragedies should fall
well in line with the general subject content of alt.atheism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
