<![CDATA[Bored of Studies - News, Current Affairs & Politics]]> http://community.boredofstudies.org en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:42:34 GMT vBulletin 60 http://community.boredofstudies.org/images/misc/rss.jpg <![CDATA[Bored of Studies - News, Current Affairs & Politics]]> http://community.boredofstudies.org Muslim countries seeking blasphemy ban - to suppress free speech http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229171&goto=newpost Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:04:17 GMT Image: http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1193/90321771801813405323613.jpg ---Quote--- GENEVA — Four years after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols...

Quote:
GENEVA — Four years after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery — essentially a ban on blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech laws in the West.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that Algeria and Pakistan have taken the lead in lobbying to eventually bring the proposal to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly.

If ratified in countries that enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental right, such a treaty would require them to limit free speech if it risks seriously offending religious believers. The process, though, will take years and no showdown is imminent.
...

Quote:
Just last month, the Obama administration came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech.

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said. "I strongly disagree."

But there are signs the U.S. is worried by the Islamic Conference campaign. Behind the scenes it has been lobbying hard to quash the proposal, dispatching a senior U.S. diplomat to Geneva last month for talks described as akin to trench warfare.
The Associated Press: AP Exclusive: Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban


Some background -
Islam and blasphemy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Blasphemy law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Freedom of speech versus blasphemy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some examples of peaceful Muslims dealing with blasphemy across the world -
Fitna (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Satanic Verses controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Theo van Gogh (film director) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


No freedom, only Islam! ]]> Sprangler http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229171 Calls to lift legal drinking age to 19 http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229148&goto=newpost Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:31:19 GMT
Quote:
Alcohol and mental health campaigners have called for the legal drinking age to be lifted to 19 in the lead up to the annual Schoolies celebrations.

The wild school-leavers parties have been branded as "ludicrous" and "dangerous" by Sydney University's Brain and Mind Research Institute chief executive Ian Hickie, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported.

Professor Hickie has recommended that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's first step to tackling binge drinking should be to raise the legal age to 19 — with an ultimate target of extending the law to 21 years.

The Australian National Council on Drugs agreed that having teenagers reach the legal drinking age while finishing school was not ideal.
''I think Ian's suggestion of breaking the nexus between drinking and school leaving is a very valid one,'' ANCD chairman John Herron said.
Both representatives highlighted the damage that alcohol can cause to developing brains.

Mr Rudd has not publicly discussed changing the law but has placed youth binge drinking on the agenda for his meeting with premiers next month.
Police in NSW and Victoria have warned school leavers to behave themselves during the partying ritual, which begins on Saturday.
The Queensland Government hosted education sessions in the state's southeast regarding alcohol and drug abuse earlier this month.

Calls to lift legal drinking age to 19
Discuss.

Hardly doubt it will fix much, it's not so much the legal drinking age thats the problem but rather the culture and media were exposed to.
Ultimately changing the legal age to 21 really isn't too bright, if people want to drink, they will drink.
I mean that whole system sure seems to have worked in the good ol' US of Aye. ]]> Enigmanation http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229148 <![CDATA[conservative vs liberalism,economically and/or socially.Whats your'e preference?]]> http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229075&goto=newpost Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:22:06 GMT so pretty much in politics disreguarding the country,what policies or parties do you prefer to lead when the going gets tough when/if events such as recessions,depressions or terrorist attacks were to occur? And also relating to policies,economically and socially who do who prefer and why? ... so pretty much in politics disreguarding the country,what policies or parties do you prefer to lead when the going gets tough when/if events such as recessions,depressions or terrorist attacks were to occur?

And also relating to policies,economically and socially who do who prefer and why?

I am a social liberal because everyones different and deserves to be treated equally.But economically i reckon im centre-right because i would prefer cutting taxes, rather than stimulating the economy however i wouldnt want inflation to run out of controll.So i wouldn't increase overall spending too much.

Basically whats your'e creed?. ]]> Riot09 http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229075 Should religions enjoy tax exempt status? http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229061&goto=newpost Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:02:05 GMT Should religions be tax exempt? And the slightly curlier question imo is that if religions are *not* tax exempt then where does this leave religious/church-based charities? Should religions be tax exempt?

And the slightly curlier question imo is that if religions are not tax exempt then where does this leave religious/church-based charities? ]]> loquasagacious http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229061 Scientology cult is a criminal organisation http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229022&goto=newpost Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:07:55 GMT Nick Xenophon's Speech on Scientology ]]> Aplus http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=229022 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS .. thoughts and opinions? http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228968&goto=newpost Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:37:19 GMT From having read this:
Indonesian officials board Oceanic Viking | World News | News.com.au

For them to be GRANTED visas and will be coming into our land within a few weeks and Kevin Rudd making this country and John Howard's old policy (which was better than KRudds) a mockery, and to make us look like fools towards the rest of the world.

So tell me, are you against or for illegal (economic migrants) immigrants coming into our land jumping queue ahead of those trying to come to this country LEGALLY? What about REAL refugees? who are currently waiting in camps, who don't have cash at all, who barely could afford a decent meal for their child, what about those who want to become an Australian citizenship have to wait YEARS to LEGALLY go through the process of being granted at least?

...Dear Kevin Rudd & Co plus his so called $900 supporters, I fucking hate you. ]]> chicky_pie http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228968 Dear Malcolm Turnbull: Take on Krudd or move aside and let someone else do the job http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228849&goto=newpost Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:38:21 GMT It seams to me that poor old Malcolm is facing a personal battle. Only a few years ago he was pushing the governmnet to do something about climate change and even today he wants something done about it. Problem is that his views are conflicting with the party line. Look, Malcolm is probably a... It seams to me that poor old Malcolm is facing a personal battle. Only a few years ago he was pushing the governmnet to do something about climate change and even today he wants something done about it. Problem is that his views are conflicting with the party line.

Look, Malcolm is probably a good bloke, but he should no way agree with the governments climate change BS. If he is going to make deals with Krudd against the party line he is better of sitting in the back bench and letting the big boys tackle communist Rudd. ]]> Cyrus the Great http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228849 <![CDATA[Taking the King's shilling (welfare and regulation)]]> http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228724&goto=newpost Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:53:45 GMT This issue has been touched on in a couple of recent threads so I thought it rated it's own thread: If you accept Government money must you accept Government regulation?

No:
We are compelled to pay tax (under threat of kidnap at gunpoint :p) and it is unrealistic for us to resist this, therefore we should try and get as much money out of the State in welfare as we can while avoiding regulation.

The less the state regulates it's welfare the closer it's expenditure is to the will of the people and the less evil the tax and spend state is.

Richard has argued that libertarians should actively defraud the state in an effort to extract more welfare than we pay in taxes and bring about it's downfall.

Yes:
This is perhaps the position of ideological purity as the implication is that libertarians must reject welfare because to accept it would be to become involved in the state voluntarily (as opposed to involvement through taxation which is compulsory).

On the other hand it seems to make intuitive sense that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch and if you accept Government money then it is entitled to regulate you because that is sound financial management (return on investment, etc).

Thoughts? ]]> loquasagacious http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228724 suck shit rudd: No climate-change deal by word leaders by end of 2009. http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228691&goto=newpost Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:56:15 GMT
Quote:
Singapore (CNN) -- President Obama and leaders from the rest of the world's top economic powers acknowledged Sunday that there's no hope of a major breakthrough over climate change by year's end.
The acknowledgment followed Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen telling the leaders gathered for the APEC summit in Singapore that next month's conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, is no longer likely to yield a major accord to battle global warming.
Mike Froman, a White House deputy national security adviser, told reporters that none of the leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum "thought it was likely we would reach a final agreement in Copenhagen, and yet they felt it was important that Copenhagen be a step forward."
As a result, Obama and other leaders are endorsing a new two-step process that aims to use Copenhagen as a stepping stone for a bigger accord down the road.
Obama made a surprise appearance at a breakfast devoted to climate change at the APEC summit in Singapore on Sunday, and Froman said the president told the other leaders it's important for at least some progress to be made next month.

"The president spoke about the importance of achieving success in Copenhagen," Froman said.
But the definition of "success" seems to be changing. Rasmussen briefed the leaders on preparations for the long-awaited international conference in his homeland and drastically scaled back expectations. Rasmussen unveiled a strategy that he dubbed "one agreement, two steps," aimed at putting together a deal over a longer period.
Froman said the first step would be to have all 191 countries involved in the Copenhagen summit signing on to a framework that includes key ingredients such as how to finance the coordinated effort to battle climate change. The second step, a binding deal on cutting carbon emissions, would be hashed out in further negotiations.
"I think the two steps was meant to reflect the realistic assessment that it was unrealistic to expect a full legally binding international agreement to be reached between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days," Froman said Sunday.
Froman said Obama endorsed the two-step process, but the president still will not say whether he will attend the Copenhagen summit. Former Vice President Al Gore and other luminaries have lobbied Obama to attend, saying it would send a strong signal to the world about America's commitment to forging a deal.
Meanwhile, in an official declaration released Sunday, the 21 nations that form APEC vowed to "work towards an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen," a vague promise that reflects how far from concrete action that the world's leading economies still find themselves.
The leaders also reaffirmed a promise they made at a summit in 2007 to reach "an APEC-wide aspirational target of reducing energy intensity by at least 25 percent by 2030."
rudd is shit face ]]> Cyrus the Great http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228691 Should we criminalize all dangerous behaviour consistently http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228623&goto=newpost Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:05:27 GMT It seems we have a huge double standard when it comes to certain drugs which we don't apply to other equally dangerous behaviors. A scientific study analyzing data over many years by recently sacked UK professor David Nutt demonstrated the taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse riding.

So should other activities that pose a danger that is comparable with, or greater than that of illegal drugs also be criminalized?

If not, why criminalize particular drugs, but not these other things?

Here is a list of things we would probably have to ban if we were to be consistent in our approach to banning harmful things and ban things that are at least as dangerous a marijuana and ecstasy:

Alcohol
Tobacco
Horse riding
boxing
rugby league and union
motorcycle riding
surfing
many prescription drugs
swimming at night
almost all forms of "extreme sports"

Imo I think a lot of people regard many of the aforementioned activities as more wholesome and socially acceptable than drugs. This relies on imposing our subjective cultural values and preferences on everyone. If the stated goal of drug prohibition is protecting people from harm, surely we should criminalize behaviors according to the amount of harm they can be scientifically demonstrated to cause, not according to whether most people happen to like them or not.

You could argue that these activities are "better" than drugs because many involve physical exercise. However, equivalent exercise could just as easily be gained from other much less dangerous pursuits.

Drugs may also have benefits, just as these other activities do. Many people regard taking drugs as an illuminating and spiritual experience. Many psychologists regard illegal drugs such as ecstasy and LSD as extremely useful for helping people understand their emotions, recover repressed memories and to deal with pain. ]]> Raaaaaachel http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228623 <![CDATA[Meme Theory & Religion]]> http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228573&goto=newpost Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:09:16 GMT The idea of "culturally replicating" ideas was first coined "memes" by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. Since then, there has been great discussion of the topic with particular attention paid to its applications in respect to human psychology, politics and religious thinking. Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine provides an excellent discussion. However these ideas are not without controversy and appear to still be in heated contention (see Dennet etc), given it is very difficult to produce any empirical evidence for the existence of a meme.

I was wondering what you guys thought about Meme Theory and in particular its application to say Christianity. If you use the model of a "mind virus" Christianity does appear to have all the elements. The "Christian Meme" exists solely for its own survival and proliferation, indocrtrinating hosts at every stage through prosthelyzing (particularly as children) and publicly condemning (though more contained in a secular society this century) actions which work against its goal (contentious science, reason over faith, blasphemy and apostasy, abortion (as it kills potential hosts)). In essence, "True Christians" working under the meme are even forced to contradict their own "moral values" such as not bearing false witness when it comes to issues such as homosexuality, "creationism" etc. Christianity promotes a form of "compulsive love", which from the perspective of reason not faith (a position not allowed by the meme) is immoral: love me/fear me.

Viruses lose out if they overtake all of the organisms cells and the host dies. In many ways we can see this first hand when we observe "religious martyrs" [example islam]. Christianity promotes a "pro-life/sanctity of life stance"; the meme will die with out new hosts. The recent rush to prostheylize Africa shows the natural competitiveness of the religious meme, Christianity v Islam. Encouraging large families [no contraception] with ("strong values", the conservative position) ensures many children at once will be raised under the household religious position and continue to spread the virus.

Do you consider meme theory as being a good model to conceptualise the major tenets of modern religions? Is this a fair judgement? Obviously it is only useful to think of memes as if they could "think" or had purpose, the host is still in control yet there is a strong argument that memes have a negative effect on their free will.

*Apologies for the length but a fascinating topic. Anyone actualy formally studied this theory in sociology, psychology? ]]> Cookie182 http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228573 Water found on moon http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228525&goto=newpost Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:11:39 GMT Awesome

Quote:
What exactly has Nasa found?
The equivalent of 24 gallons of frozen water, mixed in with the rock and dust that was thrown into the air when a rocket was deliberately crashed into a crater near the Moon's south pole last month. It is far from the science fiction fantasy of an underground lake, but still pretty impressive for a satellite long dismissed as arid and dull.

Didn't we know there was water on the Moon already?
Scientists have long suspected that there was water on the Moon, but have struggled to prove it. The sensors on orbital craft have detected evidence of hydrogen on the lunar surface, but the quantities were tiny. A major breakthrough came last September, when India announced that its Chandrayaan-1 craft had detected that chemical reactions producing water are still taking place.

Where does the water come from?
No one is certain. One theory suggests that hydrogen released by the Sun in solar winds could have reacted with compounds containing oxygen in the Moon rock, producing tiny amounts of H20. Another explanation proposes that the water came from vapour produced when comets and meteors crashed into the Moon's surface.

What does this all mean?
Nasa has been so keen to find water on the Moon because it brings the dream of a permanent lunar base one step closer. If water exists in the quantities that Nasa now believes, it could be drunk by astronauts, turned into oxygen to make stations inhabitable and – most excitingly – converted into fuel. The Moon could then become the space equivalent of a service station – acting as a staging post for manned missions to Mars.
Water found on Moon by Nasa: Q&A - Telegraph ]]> John McCain http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228525 Incompetent Teachers?!(have your say) http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228368&goto=newpost Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:51:21 GMT The union found that in 60 per cent of secondary schools, teachers were working in fields they were not fully qualified in.The shortage was most acute in mathematics and technology The president of the AEU, Angelo Gavrielatos, says a better strategy is needed to attract teachers of the right... The union found that in 60 per cent of secondary schools, teachers were working in fields they were not fully qualified in.The shortage was most acute in mathematics and technology


The president of the AEU, Angelo Gavrielatos, says a better strategy is needed to attract teachers of the right calibre. "We need a comprehensive plan to ensure that we can attract and retain teachers in the numbers required. For far too long governments have ignored the warning signs." Every child has the right to a qualified teacher in front of his or her classroom," he said.


Federal Education Minister Julia Gillard says the Government is working to address the shortage of properly qualified teachers.
Ms Gillard says the Government knows there is a problem and is providing extra funding to encourage graduates to become specialist teachers.
"We obviously can't make teachers overnight, and we inherited a school system that had been neglected for more than 10 years by the Liberal government:cold:, but our education revolution is already delivering measures to induce teachers in the maths and science fields," she said.


Students taught by unqualified teachers - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


One in five schools in NSW said they had at least one maths teacher who was not fully qualified.


The shock figures emerged as more than 30,000 Year 12 candidates sat the HSC General Mathematics paper yesterday and a leading maths educator warned Australia was slipping behind other countries.


One of the state's top maths students in the 2008 HSC, Ahmad Sultani (Parramatta High School) said maths needed a much better image in the early years of high school.
Mr Sultani, now completing his first year at UNSW, said the subject should be promoted more vigorously to students.



Students in almost 60 per cent of high schools taught by unqualified teachers | The Daily Telegraph


A survey of more than 600 teachers by Flinders University has revealed 42 per cent of Year 11 and 12 physics teachers do not have a university qualification in that field.
The rate was 28 per cent among chemistry teachers and 25 per cent among biology teachers.

AdelaideNow... Unqualified teachers fail scientific tests


So what do you think of the future of Australia's public education with incompetent or even unqualified teachers? ]]> nonsenseTM http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228368 <![CDATA[Ruddkip's Word Police]]> http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228215&goto=newpost Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:14:54 GMT OK, just heard this yesterday on the Kerri-Anne Cannoli show, and found an article on it this morning, tell us what you think about the issue Rudd censorship row over new printing entitlement rules | The Courier-Mail (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26327879-953,00.html) OK, just heard this yesterday on the Kerri-Anne Cannoli show, and found an article on it this morning, tell us what you think about the issue

Rudd censorship row over new printing entitlement rules | The Courier-Mail ]]> NCB619 http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228215 Criminal Krudd to hand over our wealth http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228195&goto=newpost Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:52:38 GMT http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/...-1225794045942

This is only the beginning and demonstrates clearly what "Global Warming" hoax is really about....

All of this without a single debate and no referendum....the opposition is also completely silent.

Do you think it will stop there.....no way they once this is up and running they will just keep increasing it. We are about to be sucked dry.

How ironic - the whole deal is being put together and signed by an "Asian" on our behalf.

Quote:
So keen is the Prime Minister to get this new global-warming treaty signed that he's been appointed a "friend of the chairman" to tie up loose ends.

So here's the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treaty that could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a year to a new and unelected global authority?

Plus, says paragraph 17 of annex III E, developed countries such as Australia should "compensate for damage" to the economies of poorer countries "and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity" allegedly caused by our gases.

The powers this board will have over us are astonishing. For a start, it will check our emissions, and could "impose financial penalties, at a minimum of 10 times the market price of carbon, for any emissions in excess".

Work it out: if we exceed our emissions target by, say, as much as Rudd warned two years ago we'd overshoot by 2012, we'd be up for a fine of $1.4 billion even with the very lowest carbon price under Rudd's plan.
]]> Planck http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=228195