Tag Archives: rabbitpirate

Down with this sort of thing

Now I know that every skeptic and freethinker on the blogosphere, and I am ashamed that I had to look up how to spell that, has mentioned this already and I am pretty sure that I have done so myself in the past. However this is an issue that I feel strongly about and which, to be honest, anyone who cares about free speech should feel strongly about as well.

As you no doubt know the libel laws in the UK are a joke. Not only are they around 150 times more expensive than else where in Europe but, unlike most laws, they also seem to operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis. Combine this with the fact that the UK libel laws can be brought to bare against anyone anywhere in the world if the thing they are commenting on has so much as looked in the general direction of the UK and you have a pretty effective tool for people of questionable scruples to use for silencing those who, often quiet legitimately, speak out against them. No where are these issues clearer than with regards to skeptical hero Simon Singh and his on going battle against the forces of evil the British Chiropractic Association.

Continue reading Down with this sort of thing

It’s just a game people

For a long time now the claim that violent video games cause people to commit real world acts of violence has been floating around the planets collective consciousness, without any really supporting evidence to my mind, but now it seems that things are going one step further. A recent study into games carried out by two Swiss human rights organisations, Trial and Pro Juventute, investigated a number of recently released games to see which of them allowed their players to break humanitarian laws with regards to war crimes. The study focused on how games treat civilians, combatants who surrender and “protected objects” such as churches and mosques, looking for violations of the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols.

Twenty games were scrutinised to see if the conflicts they portrayed and what players can do in the virtual theatres of war were subject to the same limits as in the real world.

 

“The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is… astonishing,” said the study.

 

 

The games were analysed to see “whether certain scenes and acts committed by players would constitute violations of international law if they were real, rather than virtual”.

 

Unsurprisingly they found that many games violated the rules of war with reckless abandon. But what exactly is the problem with this and what do they want games designers to do about it?

 

It said games were sending an “erroneous” message that conflicts were waged without limits or that anything was acceptable in counter-terrorism operations.

 

“This is especially problematic in view of today’s reality,” said the study.

 

In particular, it said, few games it studied reflected the fact that those who “violate international humanitarian law end up as war criminals, not as winners”.

 

The authors said they did not wish to make games less violent, instead, they wrote: “[We] call upon game producers to consequently and creatively incorporate rules of international humanitarian law and human rights into their games.”

 

Ok seriously, we are talking about computer games here right? The games they looked at included Far Cry 2, Metal Gear Solid and 24: The Game. Does anyone think that these games have anything to do with reality? Do they really think that playing a game like Army of Two will cause people to go out and commit real life war crimes? Just as playing Doom doesn’t cause people to go on a homicidal rampage, playing war games doesn’t turn you into Hitler or Stalin. Computer games are a form of escapism and as such should, first and foremost, be entertaining and fun. Sometimes after a hard day at work there is nothing more relaxing than loading up your favourite game and taking out your frustration on a few innocent civilians. This doesn’t mean for a second that I would ever do the same thing in real life and no matter how realistic the blood spatter or how convincing the cries of pain I, and the vast majority of games, are intelligent enough to remember that it is, at the end of the day, only a game.

 

This just strikes me as yet another pop at gamers from a group of people who neither understand them nor the games they play.

Just take an hour

With the flu season practically upon us and the media full of stories and misinformation about H1N1 and vaccines in general it is great that a couple of the internet and podcasting’s more prominent skeptics have taken the time out to set the records straight on this issue. This week both Brian Dunning at Skeptoid.com and Steven Novella of The Skeptics Guide the Universe have both released episodes dedicated to correcting the misinformation and allying allaying the fears related to these topics. With a combined running time of less than hour this is the quickest and easiest way to get up to date on this important issue.

 

But then seeing where I am I imagine that you lot already know all about these podcasts and have already listened to them. Sometimes I wonder why I bother. 😉

…about that last bit

I’ve been meaning to write about this for a while now and today a number of tangentially related posts over on the excellent Pharyngula blog reminded me that I hadn’t, plus they also gave me some great up to date examples to use as ammunition when making my case. A few weeks ago now I had to attend a mandatory Equality and Diversity training course at the place where I work. Even before it started I knew that I was going to find some of the things they said objectionable. After all I live in the UK, that great fortress of “multiculturalism” and all the subtle racist undertones that idea incorporates. In this country we are told that outright de facto respect for all beliefs and opinions is more important than rationally evaluating those beliefs to see if they are beneficial or harmful to the society in which we live. As such I was not at all surprised when, early in the training, a slide was put up that gave the following description of how the company views diversity (emphasis original):

 

Diversity is about recognising, accepting and valuing difference. It is an appreciation that while we are all part of a single nation with shared rights and responsibilities we are also individuals with our own talents, ambitions and priorities.

 

Reading that my hand immediately went up with a question. Why, I asked, had they applied special emphasis to the word “valuing“? I continued by stating that I had no problem with recognising and even accepting the fact that other people hold different views and beliefs to me but why was I expect to value those different beliefs, especially if said beliefs were in direct opposition to beliefs I myself hold? A look of mild horror crossed the face of the lady doing the training and I got the feeling that no one had ever questioned her on this before. Somewhat reluctantly she explained that she didn’t know why the word “valuing” had been singled out like that and that they were not really expecting us to value beliefs that directly conflicted with our own. Now if she had left it there I might have, begrudgingly, let her get away with it. However she continued with this wonderful sentence.

 

“By valuing what we mean is that we expect you to be tolerant of the beliefs of others.”

 

You can bet my hand shot up with more questions about that one.

 

Continue reading …about that last bit

And now for something completely different

Ok firstly, seriously people am I the only person posting on this blog at the moment? I mean one more post and the entire first page will be nothing but posts from me and I’m pretty sure our readers don’t want to just be hearing from me all the time.

 

Secondly I have to acknowledge that there is a very good chance, judging from the reactions of people I know, that no one else is going to find this as remotely cool, interesting or hypnotic as I do. I completely expect that many of the comments on this one will be along the lines of “erm ok then” or the ever popular “WTF!”

 

So a while back, inspired by similar things from the likes of CDK007 and Thunderf00t, I decided to try and write a little program that would visually demonstrate the principles of evolution by natural selection. I know, my life really is that exciting. I decided to create a little population of computerised bugs and by simply applying selection pressure to them show how they could evolve over the generations to be better suited to their environment. The main difference, between my program and those of the afore mentioned YouTubers, is that I wanted to make my version interactive so that people could play around with it to their hearts content. With that in mind I made a whole host of changes to the original version of the program I had written before so that it is now possible to play around with a number of different selection pressures and change the environment in which the bugs live at will. Finally I made the decision to share it with the rabid horde here at the League of Reason. So with no further ado, and with some trepidation, I give you:

 

Bug Evolver 2.0

 

For more details of exactly what is going on in this program check below the fold.

 

 

Continue reading And now for something completely different

Drugs are bad…mmm’kay

Ok firstly let me apologise for not posting anything in ages. No excuse really, I just didn’t get around to it. But hey it seems as if no one else did either so I don’t feel all that bad about it now. Anyway on to what I wanted to talk about.

 

Now I am sure that by now many of you have heard about Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, being fired by Home Secretary Alan Johnson for comments about the government’s cannabis policy. I have no doubt there is more to the story than is being reported but it does seem to indicate that, despite Mr Johnson doing his best to avoid saying so directly, Professor Nutt was let go because he publicly pointed out that the government’s policy with regards to certain drugs was in no way based upon scientific evidence nor the advise provided by the advisory council itself.

 

Now I don’t know what your thoughts are with regards to the legality of drugs, though I would be interested to find out, but I think the point to focus on here has to do with the intersection of science and political policy. Here is a section from the BBC report on the matter that I think highlights my point:

 

Prof Nutt was sacked on Friday after using a lecture to say that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

 

He also said it was upgraded to Class B – against the council’s advice – for political reasons. Earlier in the year he had suggested that taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than horse riding.

 

Hitting back in the Guardian, the home secretary said Prof Nutt was not sacked for his views “which I respect but disagree with” but because “he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy”.

 

It is that last sentence that really stands out. The job of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is to provide the government with the best information there is about the dangers of drugs. If the evidence says, to use Professor Nutt’s own example, that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than cannabis, and you say this, does this really make you “a campaigner against government policy“? Are you not just telling the truth? So is the truth against government policy? Fellow council member Dr Les King, who resigned in protest over this matter, had this to say:

He said ministers had used the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs as “a rubber stamp, as a poodle, by coming to the advisory council with a pre-determined agenda about drug classification”.

 

What do we do when the science says one thing but the political wind is blowing in the other direction? If the government wants to put out the message that cannabis is a killer and should be illegal but all the evidence says otherwise where should we, as skeptics and rational thinkers, side on this matter? With the Law or with the science?

 

I’m not going to say any more on this right now as I am still formulating my own thoughts. I would, as always, be interested to hear what you think about this issue.

 

Oh and on a completely unrelated note 2009 Golden Crocoduck winner Ray Comfort has used a comment from me as the basis of his latest blog post. That’s fairly cool…in a weird way.

The Naked Truth

I thought I would do a quick post to get your take on this issue. Manchester Airport are currently trialling a new security scanner that produces full body scans of a person and which is designed to quickly highlight any concealed weapons or explosives. That’s all well and good, however:

 

…the full body scans will also show up breast enlargements, body piercings and a clear black-and-white outline of passengers’ genitals.

 

The airport has stressed that the images are not pornographic and will be destroyed straight away.

 

Ok so the pictures will not be saved and they don’t class them as pornographic and yet strangely that doesn’t make me any more inclined to let strangers look at pictures of my junk. Sarah Barrett, head of customer experience at the airport, goes on to stress these points.

 

Ms Barrett said: “This scanner completely takes away the hassle of needing to undress.”

 

Ms Barrett said the black-and-white image would only be seen by one officer in a remote location before it was deleted.

 

“The images are not erotic or pornographic and they cannot be stored or captured in any way,” she said.

 

Now we are all internet users here and so we all know that anything, no matter how bizarre or out there, can be considered “erotic or pornographic” by someone. Let me give you a hypothetical example but one that I don’t think is beyond the realm of possibility. A female team for some sport of another is passing through security at Manchester Airport. Somewhere in a “remote location” security officer Billy Bob is watching a parade of shapely female forms, complete with “body piercings and a clear black-and-white outline of passengers’ genitals“, pass one by one across the screen in front of him. Are they seriously trying to tell us that Billy Bob is not going to really enjoy his job that day?

 

As for the claim that the pictures could not be saved in anyway I have to wonder about that too. Let’s say this scanner shows someone has a weapon strapped to his chest. As the security personnel move in he manages to discard it from his person. The weapon is found but the suspect denies that it is his. Now the only evidence you have that he had the weapon on him is the picture take by the scanner. Again I find it hard to believe that the ability to save an image is completely absent in this system even if it is not something that is done routinely. If these things do become common place how long do you think it will be before an image of some starlet of the week passing through security appears on the internet?

 

Ok so I know I have taken things a bit far there but this whole thing strikes me as wrong. Also it is true that currently people can refuse to be scanned but that of course does assume that they know in advance the sort of image the scanner is going to produce. We live in a world where the threat of a terrorist attack is very real and yet I can’t help thinking this is a step too far. Are we not entitled to some level of privacy, at least to the point where we are not required to let strangers see our naked bodies before we are allowed to get on a plane?

 

Sorry that was a bit off topic but I would be interested to know how you guys feel about this.

Open letter to my GP

Below the fold you will find a copy of a letter I recently sent to my local GP. Because I have yet to recieve any reply back from them and am in fact generally happy with them I have decided not to include the name of the practice in this post, I’m sure you understand. Also I just want to mention a similar letter by The Australian Skeptics from which I will admit borrowing a few lines. Hey they had already done the research; there was no reason for me to go reinventing the wheel. Anyway here’s what I had to say:

 

Continue reading Open letter to my GP

Don’t go having an opinion now

Here at the League of Reason we are all about freedom of speech and as such I feel the need to mention this even though many of us would be happy if people just stopped talking about religion altogether. Now as that is unlikely to happen this is worth looking at as the outcome of this case could end up having an effect on those of us, like Th1sWasATriumph, who are actively involved in debating religious people. Anyway as I write this evangelical Christians, hotel proprietors and owners of a seriously sci-fi surname Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang are awaiting trial accused of breaching public order because they allegedly insulted a guest’s religion. The couple apparently engaged in discussion with a Muslim guest about the differences between their religions during which they are said to have described Muslim dress as putting women into “bondage’ and Mohammed as a “warlord’. Oh noes.

 

The couple were arrested and charged for this most terrible of crimes under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 (1) (c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which has dismayed a number of lawyers who consider this a misuse of the act that was designed to deal with law and order problems in the streets. Prominent criminal barrister and expert in religious law Neil Addison had this to say on the matter:

 

‘The purpose of the Public Order Act is to prevent disorder, but I’m very concerned that the police are using it merely because someone is offended.

 

‘It should be used where there is violence, yobbish behaviour or gratuitous personal abuse. It should never be used where there has been a personal conversation or debate with views firmly expressed.

 

‘If someone is in a discussion and they don’t like what they are hearing, they can walk away.’

 

Now while the church has used this as yet more evidence that they are oh so persecuted I think this is something the rest of us should keep an eye on. If they are convicted then this could set a worrying legal precedent. Right now people have freedom of speech; they do not have the freedom not to be offended. If these people are convicted then the Public Order Act could be used to change all that, at least that is how I read this article. Are there any lawyers out there who could shed some more light on the matter?

No, don’t ask Barry!

I just want to give my quick two pence worth about this article on the Telegraph Website that is a great example of why taking the “balanced” approach to a story always results in credulous information, the illusion of controversy where none actually exists and just plain bad journalism reporting. These days it seems that no matter how one sided a topic may be reporters will do their damnest to find that one crackpot who holds an opposite point of view so that they can presents a “balanced” article that highlights the “controversy” raging between the “experts”. I think Dara Ó Briain put it best. When interviewing a NASA scientist about their plans for a new space station you don’t also have to interview a guy who thinks that the sky is a giant carpet painted by God in order to present a “balanced” view of the issue. Some times one side is really is right and the other side is just plain wrong. I’m sure I don’t need to tell you lot this but when it comes right down to it creationists really are on the same level as geocentrists, flat earthers and that guy who thinks the sky is a carpet. Plus if this article really contains the 5 best arguments for creation then I don’t think that those of us who live in a little place I like to call “reality” have anything to worry about. Anyway that’s all I have to say on the matter. I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this.

 

Oh and sorry about the excessive use of quote marks, I got kind of “carried away”.