Category: Uncategorized

The quiz covering the events of Book FiveSix, which took place during the seventeenth and eighteenth years of the war can be taken here. Sorry about the delay… now discuss away!

The History of the Peloponnesian War 1.1 to 1.115.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 1.116 to 2.46.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 2.47 to 2.103.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 3.1 to 3.116.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 4.1 to 4.135.

The History of the Peloponnesian War 5.1 to 5.116.

UPDATE – A few of the Thucydidean die-hards have expressed some concerns about the project. DocBrown, who has been solid throughout, wondered aloud: “Does anyone else get the feeling Vox is losing interest; late quizzes, very few comments on his part, no follow up posts with analysis like at the beginning?”

It’s not a matter of losing interest, only a matter of being busy with a few other things this summer. Unfortunately, it’s nothing I can discuss yet, but I’ve had some interesting opportunities present themselves of late, two of which I’ve chosen to pursue. The one that I can mention is a group blog to which I’ll be contributing once a week; it kicks off in another two weeks and I’m quite looking forward to it as I’m a big fan of the associated publication. It’s nothing political, but it will provide a nice venue for a topic that has seldom proven to be of much interest here.

Regarding Book Six, I was struck once more with what an effective general Demosthenes is. It would have been interesting to know what he thought of the expedition; Nicias’s doubts are well-founded, but his good reputation and military competence notwithstanding, he lacks the strength of character to decline the command. One thing that is oft forgotten when it comes to the Athenians is their military prowess on land as well as sea, they tend to remind me somewhat of the WWII German infantry in their audacity and aggressiveness. In battle after battle, they prove superior in terms of leadership and performance, they’re simply not the effete mercantile philosophers that they’re often assumed to be.

Before I forget, Book Seven will be next Saturday.

Beezle sums it up well:

Scientists generally suffer from overspecialization, but only because it’s now required due to the vast breadth of knowledge. They are generally NOT learned in philosophical issues, which is why when they are forced into a philosophical argument by a theist, they lamely fall back on sputtering something about falsifiablity, scientific method, and Popper, then promptly run out of gas.

This is true. And compounding the problem is that many scientists are so poorly learned when it comes to philosophical issues, (or most of the time, anything outside their specialty), that they don’t even realize when they are making a philosophical argument of their own volition; it’s seldom necessary for a theist or anyone else to force them into it.

It is a challenge to defeat a scientist in an argument related to his area of specialty. It is also a challenge to lose an argument to a scientist in just about any other area. For all that he comes off as an egregious buffoon most of the time, PZ Myers is strategically correct to stick to the petty name-calling that is the entirety of his method of argument relating to anything outside of his narrow field of science; attempting more would banish the illusion of his intellectual expertise and reveal the paucity of both his knowledge and his intelligence.

British Commissar Harriet Harman proposes an Equality Bill on behalf of underrepresented minorities:

it is an unexamined assumption that equality must be connected with representation. Why do people so often assume equality for women – in, say, nuclear physics or welding or the police force – must mean the representation of women in equal numbers in those fields? If a certain percentage of policewomen are not Muslims or Hasidic Jews, does that of itself mean they have been discriminated against?

This latest imperial overreach by British NuLabor equalitarians should be interesting. It’s not an entirely bad thing, not when it could result in Labor finishing behind both the British National Party and the United Kingdom Independence Party in the next general election. And it would be amusing to think of this concept crosssing the Atlantic and giving short white men the ability to sue the NBA in order to kick tall black men out of their jobs. Young, male beer-drinking enthusiasts would be able to sue the universities to kick studious young women out of college and Hispanics would be justified in booting Jews out of the the film studios and the investment banks; when one looks at the U.S. population demographic, the two most striking aspects are Jewish overrepresentation and Hispanic underrepresentation in a wide variety of fields.

The new equalitarianism diktat would also be good news for Christian evangelicals, who are severely underrepresented in many fields, including the tenured professariats and government-funded laboratories. It wouldn’t be so hot for atheists, however, who have long trumpeted their massive overrepresentation in the National Academy of the Sciences. But it’s healthy to be outside, so perhaps those future former academy members will come to be thankful for their new jobs picking fruit and trimming hedges.

If you don’t get your debt under control, someone else will:

The easy money that led Americans to depend on credit cards to pay their bills is starting to dry up. After fostering the explosive growth of consumer debt in recent years, financial companies are reducing the credit limits on cards held by millions of Americans, often without warning.

I find it amazing that the official story is that we’re STILL teetering on the edge of a recession. The reality is that we’ve been in one for several quarters, but the artificially low inflation numbers have prevented the inflation-adjusted GDP numbers from shrinking. But even this egregious statistics-fudging won’t disguise the state of the economy for much longer.

McCrazy can’t stop letting the migrating cat out of the bag:

I haven’t won on every issue. I didn’t win on immigration reform, but I’ll go back at it. And I’m glad I did it.

Just one of the many reasons I wouldn’t even consider voting for John McCain. The truth is, I don’t see how either he or the Magic Negro can win, although presumably one of them has to. I suppose it will be rather like a game between the Miami Dolphins and the San Francisco 49ers; whoever manages to screw up less will win.

NateM passed this on to me. I don’t usually bother with these tagging games, but I found this one hard to resist.

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Social autism.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Yes. Baptist.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Irrelevant.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Since many would probably classify it as a scientific endeavour, I’d say artificial intelligence even though I consider it to be a technological development rather than a scientific one. As for actual science, I’m looking forward to seeing genetic science used to create new medical technologies as well as eventually demolishing the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

What: Realizing the illusion of its supposed dedication to rational materialism and science.
Why: Because it is very, very difficult to have a rational and intelligent conversation with an irrational, maleducated individual who is convinced that he is more rational and more educated than everyone else on the sole basis of his childhood disbelief in the supernatural.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

“Are you sure you’re up for the challenge?” The Bible makes it clear that more is expected of those who put themselves in positions of spiritual leadership. It’s not for the faint of heart, and there’s no shortage of examples of weak men being all too easily destroyed in those roles.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

The evidence argument. It’s proven to be rather difficult to refute since the vast majority of atheists have a very poor understanding of what evidence is – their tendency towards science fetishism often causes them to believe only scientific evidence is evidence – and quickly find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to deny the existence of things they quite clearly believe. Turning it around, I quite enjoy dealing with the atheist Argument by Imperfect Design.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

I’ll leave that up to others to decide.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Intellectually, Dennett. But personally, I think Harris is the most open-minded and would probably the most interesting to have dinner with.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Their beliefs in what? God? Equality? The certain triumph of the Worker’s ParadiseEnlightenment?

A Democrat sees positive signs in Heller:

Justice Scalia’s opinion, if one cuts through some of the bluster, is really quite moderate—he goes out of his way to support the legitimacy of much current federal regulation—and could easily be endorsed by Sen. Obama without political cost, save for those who wish him to continue down the politically fatal path of endorsing extremely restrictive gun control….

If one had any reason to believe that either Scalia or Stevens was a competent historian, then perhaps it would be worth reading the pages they write. But they are not. Both opinions exhibit the worst kind of “law-office history,” in which each side engages in shamelessly (and shamefully) selective readings of the historical record in order to support what one strongly suspects are pre-determined positions.

The latter paragraph is directly related to what we were discussing yesterday. Lawyers and those in the legal industry are obsessed with the “internal” aspects. They’re constantly quibbling over irrelevant minutiae when it is usually the “external” factors that drive the actual judicial process and create the inconsistencies that are subsequently interpreted and spun into the minutiae of tomorrow. Meanwhile, the former paragraph should give pause to those conservatives inclined to celebrate the decision. As one commenter mentioned, this is a decision that says: “You have the right to own a gun today. But we have laid the groundwork for taking away that right tomorrow.”

The Original Cyberpunk hosts a book discussion on Robert Heinlein’s SF classic Stranger in a Strange Land.

My own thoughts later…. In the meantime, Sean gets even stranger with this hilarious Heinlein parody.

The two semifinal games were two of the better games played in what has been a surprisingly lackluster tournament. The problem, I think, is that none of the more skilled teams has a reliable back four, which has caused most of the managers to play their midfielders in a predominantly defensive position. With a few notable exceptions – such as Lang’s game-winning goal for Germany – we haven’t seen many attacking runs forward by the defenders on the wings. Of course, it probably didn’t help that Greece managed to win the previous tournament with little more than solid defending and an in-form keeper.

1. Pre-tournament favorite Germany still looks shaky, but they’re in the finals. If Podolski and Schweinsteiger didn’t combine for that surprise first goal in quick response to Turkey’s – Germany was under non-stop assault for the first 20 minutes and hadn’t generated a single serious attack before their first score – they might have lost 4-0. But they did and kept Germany in the game long enough to get them past the point of potential collapse, proving that it’s always dangerous to count out the Germans no matter how average they appear.

2. Russia under Hiddink was definitely the most exciting team in the tournament. As in the Holland game, they threw everything they had at the Spanish, but the Spanish defense was more solid than the Dutch. Italy showed that you can shut down Villa, Torres, Fabregas and Silva by playing ten men back, but playing not to lose is foolish, especially against a squad with plenty of ace penalty-takers. Russia’s defense isn’t that good, so once it became apparent that the Spanish defense wasn’t overly bothered by the pressure, it was clear that the Russians were doomed even before the first Spanish goal in the second half. You have to respect Hiddink, though. I think he would be a very interesting coach for the US team to consider for the next World Cup.

3. Donadoni got fired, and deservedly so. He’s a great player, a good-looking clotheshorse, and a terrible manager. I seriously think I could have gotten Italy past the group stage, counting on Luca Toni in the attack was simply stupid.

4. One of the English announcers has a rather peculiar tendency towards the redundant. Is it really necessary to declare “Now it’s Torres for Spain” or “On the ball is Schweinsteiger for Germany”? Sure, in some situations clarifying any potential ambiguity would be desirable, but I’m confident that most people can figure out which side Li Yao or Marco Matterazi are playing for when China is up against Italy.

5. Spain looks very, very good. My predictions have been pretty bad, but I’ve talked up Spain all along and I think this is the year they win it all. Casillas hasn’t been asked to do much, but he’s risen to the occasion when required; for example, his save on Camoranesi’s shot in the Italy game turned out to be crucial. With the exception of the dread Italian catenaccio, Cesc and the other midfielders have had little trouble opening up and carving apart opposing defenses and the ease with which Turkey scored on Germany – to say nothing of the customary blunders of Jens Lehman with which every Arsenal fan is all too familiar – I see no reason to believe that Spain will have too much trouble with an overmatched Germany. 3-1 Spain.

Brainbiter considers some suspicious similarities between Gray and Day:

I am not seeking to promote [British philosopher John] Gray’s point of view here, but rather to provoke questions about Vox Day’s point of view. On a particular range of subjects, Day seems almost to have cribbed from Gray. Since Day’s opinions on a wide range of subjects are, by his own admission, not expert opinions but merely intelligent observations, it is reasonable to assume that his similarities to Gray are due to having read Gray or being indebted to the same sources.

Reasonable, but incorrect. This is easy. I’ve never heard of this British John Gray. I don’t know him. While I’ve been in London every so often, I’ve never heard him speak and I’ve never read anything that he’s written. The only John Gray I’ve ever heard of is the “Mars/Venus” guy, but I haven’t read any of his stuff either. That being said, he sounds incredibly brilliant! I suggest that the reason for the similarities between our conclusions about the New Atheists probably rests heavily on the fact that those conclusions are completely freaking obvious to anyone who has read the New Atheist literature, possesses a reasonable knowledge of history, is sufficiently observant, and is capable of logical analysis.

It’s kind of funny. On the one hand, atheists like to assert that I’m crazy, I’m incredibly stupid, and have no idea what I’m talking about. Then, on the other, they leap hungrily at the suggestion that I must be PLAGIARIZING from a well-respected academic philosopher. Now, how those two things add up? But then, as I chronicled so copiously in The Irrational Atheist, logic is not exactly a strong point for most of these fellows.

UPDATE – In a different post, Brainbiter managed to crack me up. While his first surmise is true, I suppose some might consider the latter to be equally relevant. “It could be that the atheists in question don’t go into the detailed reasons for their anxiety…. However, it is also possible that Vox is just too arrogant to bother.”

Well, kind of. Had they given any coherent reasons, I would have attacked them. But they didn’t, probably because they’re groundless.