Daylight Atheism > Blogroll Meme

< Previous: On Torture and "Tribulation Saints"

Blogroll Meme

I don't normally do these things, but Greta Christina started this one, and it seemed the least I could do was to participate.

The idea of this meme is to pick three sites from your blogroll that, together, form a combination that no one else has, and that you think says something about the unique nature of your own blog.

I choose these three:

A Load of Bright: Toby may be taking a break from blogging, but I have little doubt that he'll be back sooner or later. Since he consistently writes some of the most insightful posts on religion I've seen, I hope it'll be sooner!

Dangerous Intersection: My good friend Erich and his stable of talented co-authors turn out some great posts on almost any topic you can imagine - politics, science, religion, culture, media. A great site that deserves to be more widely known.

Slacktivist: If more Christians were like Fred Clark, I think there wouldn't be nearly as many angry atheists out there. Plus the most entertainingly scathing dissection of the Left Behind books to be found anywhere on the internet.

My memes are non-viral, so I'm not going to single anyone out - but if you want to participate, consider yourself tagged!

Consider this an open thread. And while we're at it, let's make this a blog self-promotion thread. If you've got a blog you'd like to be more widely known, tell us about it in the comments and explain why it's worth checking out.

14 Comments

I've been considering starting a blog, actually; topics would include atheism, arguments on various moral issues (there's one on intellectual property I've been meaning to make, for instance), and parenting, but I think the major focus would be what being me is actually like (I have a set of symptoms that are highly consistent with low-to-moderate Asperger's Syndrome, though I've never been formally diagnosed with it, due to the several psychiatrists I saw as a child, in spite of my mother's expressed concerns, summarily refusing to even consider it). Any suggestions, on where to start and what to keep in mind?

Comment by: Alex Weaver | January 4, 2008, 12:43 am

Thank you, Adam, for the honourable mention and very generous words. :)

Comment by: tobe38 | January 4, 2008, 1:46 am

I dont have my own blog but am I allowed to comment on an article in Slacktivists blog? Its a minor point but it has to do with the torture/waterboarding resignation letter of the Navy lawyer. Of course as a supposedly progressive democracy we are against the torture of prisoners of war.I would point out however that the Geneva Convention does not apply to those who are not prisoners of war. I think all of us know what any president would do(even if they did it plausibly deniably) if we captured a terrorist who we knew , knew the location of a nuclear device in a large U.S. city about to be detonated. I think an atheist president, or a theist presdient would issue an executive order authorizing waterboarding and then some of the terrorist. I am not saying I like this or even "agree", but we all know what any of us would have to do. your thoughts?

Comment by: theistscientist | January 4, 2008, 2:39 am

If torture had any record of getting reliable information, which it doesn't, you might have a case. However, what happens if the leader just makes something up to get the torture to stop, the government acts on that information and ignores other leads, and the nuclear device goes off unhindered? Why is it so hard to get through to people that torture does not produce reliable information, anyway?

Also, this weaseling about who the Geneva Convention does and does not apply to that I've been hearing from a lot of people besides just you is, frankly, contemptible. The fact that it technically applies only to prisoners of war is almost certainly either an issue of enforceability and the intended scope of the larger treaty of which it is a part, or a result of the conditions of warfare familiar to the framers, not an endorsement of a moral difference between "prisoners of war" and "prisoners of war in all but name." The clear intent of the treaty is to prevent the torture of captured enemies, the prevention of which is a moral obligation in any case.

Comment by: Alex Weaver | January 4, 2008, 2:55 am

alex, I've been using the socratic method to teach graduate students for twenty five years. All you have to do is switch the hypo. Instead of torturing the terrorist, you torture one of his adult relatives in his presence [this IS reliable and can be proven to be reliable],(its horrible, but it is reliable,and no I am not aspirationally advocating it) and i respectfully disagree that pow is just a weasle word in the geneva convention. Spies just dont get that level of protection. Maybe they should but legally they just dont. Those that dont wear uniforms and carry military identification are treated differently. I am curious, what is your opinion on the execution of the Rosenbergs? OK city bomber? Saddam Hussein? Osama Bin Laden? And if you say itis ok to execute some of these, are you saying it would be ok to exctue them after the fact, but never to torture them before the fact, even if we had a [chance] of getting info from them which would prevent the (fact)?

Comment by: theistscientist | January 4, 2008, 3:22 am

I think all of us know what any president would do(even if they did it plausibly deniably) if we captured a terrorist who we knew , knew the location of a nuclear device in a large U.S. city about to be detonated. I think an atheist president, or a theist presdient would issue an executive order authorizing waterboarding and then some of the terrorist.

That's not what's happening now. That's not a situation that laws should be written to include. The law should state that it's wrong to torture people. Always. Entreme and unlikely situations like that one should not be used to justify cruel and inhuman punishment involving the erosion of centuries of justice and principle.

In the unlikely event of a situation like that actually occurring, it wouldn't just be worth torturing that person -- it would be worth having the president lose his or her job for breaking the law by ordering it. That possibility -- of having the president be forced to step down or face prosecution and of having to torture the prisoner -- is worth risking for the sake of a legal system that does not allow the sort of abuse that is occurring at present.

Comment by: Lynet | January 4, 2008, 5:32 am

Not sure where else to ask this ... but is it possible to see "recent comments" back more than six items deep? I have the feeling sometimes that if I blink, I'm missing recnet comments (especially with Theist Scientist commenting on seven entries in a row.)

Comment by: Tomas S | January 4, 2008, 7:11 am

No, that's not possible, I'm afraid; it would put too much load on the database. (I agree that it's bad manners to start new conversations in half a dozen threads at once. Start one discussion and then finish it before moving on.) However, each post does have a link at the bottom you can use to subscribe to an RSS feed of new comments just for that thread.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | January 4, 2008, 7:56 am

I am new to blogging, I came over from IIDB, I didnt realize multiple conversations had a different effect on a blog scroll than on a message board forum, I sincerely apologize, some of the discussions were going rather slow, as in no one was responding, so I just moved on to other topics.my bad. pleae allow me to redeem myself.

Comment by: theistscientist | January 4, 2008, 11:07 am

Slacktivist is a fantastic website. Left Behind Fridays are one of the high points of my week.

Comment by: Rowan | January 4, 2008, 1:40 pm

I am an (infrequent) contributor, frequent commenter on the deconversion blog, which offers resources for skeptical, deconverting or former Christians. It's a great place where former hard-core believers like myself can compare notes on issues like how to deal with dismayed family members. We also get a fair number of evangelicals who not only come in to preach us back to faith but often stick around for some good dialogue when the preaching fails.

Comment by: Karen | January 4, 2008, 4:54 pm

Well, I've been tagged for this meme on my blog that I think probably deserves to be more widely known, thereligiousatheist.com where I talk about religion, science, and random musings from a skeptical point of view. If anyone wants to check it out, feel free to stop on by - it's new-ish but I really welcome comments and/or criticism.

Comment by: plonkee @ the religious atheist | January 4, 2008, 6:55 pm

I think it would be utterly immoral to advertise my brand-new website about religion and political science. I mean, I couldn't just post a link to it here.

Traffic and links have to be earned the hard way!

Comment by: Aferim | January 6, 2008, 12:24 pm

Adam: You are kind and generous with your comments about Dangerous Intersection. Thank you for the plug. As many of your readers know, DI is a better blog that otherwise, thanks to your willingness to post at DI with some regularity.

I make it a habit to visit Daylight Athesism to be challenged, educated, and to enjoy the impeccable writing. Congratulations on entering a new year at DA!

Comment by: Erich Vieth | January 7, 2008, 10:15 pm