This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Sargeist's Profile

Sargeist's Avatar Joined about 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Sargeist

More Discussions by Sargeist

Latest Comments by Sargeist

Go to: Faith groups to be key policy advisers

Sargeist's Avatar Jump to comment 104 by Sargeist

85. Comment #432164 by hungarianelephant

You know why I ask. The Human Rights Act achieves absolutely nothing of any value, and it's time we were honest about that.
My fiancee, who has lived in this country for 12 years, who took A levels and her degree here, and who has been in a relationship with me for over 11 years was able to avoid deportation by the UK Border Agency purely, only and solely because of an appeal our lawyer made under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:21:00 UTC | #413926

Go to: Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Who'd be female under Islamic law?

Sargeist's Avatar Jump to comment 75 by Sargeist

Layla said:

when you argue for or against rules on the basis of religious texts, you're giving the religion, however defined, the power to dictate what is and isn't allowed.
and this is the sort of thing that annoys me deeply. It is brought home particularly well by the passages Gold quoted. This one, for instance:
It was, however, not customary for women to lead prayer during the Prophet’s time, but we believe it is important to ask whether this was a reflection of custom or religious edict. In our paper on the participation of women in politics and leadership the MWL reviews the literature on the subject and concludes that, based on the Qur’an and authentic traditions of the Prophet, it is not forbidden (haram) for a woman to lead a mixed congregation in prayer
and this one
The Qur’an is completely silent on the matter of women leading prayer
are essentially (I think) saying that if the Qur'an did say something like "women shall never lead prayers" then that would mean that it as perfectly right to prevent them, end of story.

I have browsed several books in my local library that are written by self-denoted moderate Muslim women and they all came at this from the angle of "oh, well the bits of the Qur'an that say that are put there by nasty men so we shouldn't pay attention to them" without ever appearing to realise that ignoring what the bloody book says and coming to their own conclusions might serve them better.

Tue, 05 May 2009 10:42:00 UTC | #356507

Go to: Preacher says atheist ad campaign backfired

Sargeist's Avatar Jump to comment 66 by Sargeist

Steve's back! With hat! Hi Steve :)

The story about Labour councillor Paul Blanchard (Comment #362939 by scottishgeologist on April 10, 2009 at 11:56 pm ) makes me so angry. He says something perfectly plain and sensible and people attack him for it. I've sent him a quick message of support via facebook.

I am rather upset though... I went to his facebook profile and what did I see?... Only his profile picture being him with Richard Bloody Dawkins! Argh! I cannot stand the envy!

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 01:02:00 UTC | #346580

Go to: Taliban blocks UN polio treatment in Pakistan

Sargeist's Avatar Jump to comment 24 by Sargeist

I sometimes wonder why I hate so many people. Articles like this remind me.

It is at times like these that I think to myself, surely, SURELY, there must be some way in which the rulers of these regions can simply be ignored, circumvented, removed, rendered ineffective or otherwise deleted from the planet? I fear that there can be no easy answer, or it would already have been unleashed from a distance. That there are people in the world who cause so much suffering and yet who cannot be excised from it is the cause of much dismay for me.

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:15:00 UTC | #341634

Go to: Facebook users wage condom campaign against Pope

Sargeist's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by Sargeist

It really does seem that so very many people around the world are so very stupid. If the Catholic church has evidence that latex condoms are permeable to HIV, then let them publish this remarkable research in a reputable journal, explain their methodology, show other biologists where their experiments have been botched, and so on. In the absence of such activities we can safely assume that there is no such evidence of condoms' permeability.

I am confused by some statistics cited on Wikipedia, though, about HIV transmission rates. It quotes that

The correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of sexual transmission of HIV by about 85%.
And I find this odd, given the canonical "condoms are 99% effective" mantra that usually gets trotted out. Surely this should mean that the probability of transmission from, say male to female, goes down from about 1 in 125 (taking 0.08% from Wikipedia and increasing by factor of 10 for "low-income countries") to 1 in 12500??

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 03:58:00 UTC | #340948

More Comments by Sargeist