Testifying would temporarily but tenaciously test the testicular tensile strength and timorousness of tendentious, tangerine-colored, and tactless talking toads like Trump.
Remember the domes of privacy they used to show in the movies for private conversations in a military setting?
A SCIF when spelled CORRECTLY (sorry guys its admission overload here) is that concept in modern times.
My youngest indian is choosing colleges and Embry-Riddle is our final contender and so maybe I am just used to hearing the terms but not yet learning how to spell them. Hmmmm....... and now I wonder if he is going to be able to tell me what he will be doing.... my apron strings don't stretch that long.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 15, 2017 at 11:57#704830 likes
I don't even know what to say about Trump's behavior.
Me either. I just have to believe that as a successful CEO, he is thinking like one and that is usually two steps beyond where most people stop and accept the results.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 15, 2017 at 12:01#704840 likes
So, is Comey going to get into a boat and whisper answers to questions to one other person? Somehow, that doesn't make sense. And where would the rest of the committee be? Paddling along in their own skiffs? Since boats tend to be longer than they are wide, they are phallic.
They are already in a dingy... :D
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 15, 2017 at 12:04#704860 likes
Testifying would temporarily but tenaciously test the testicular tensile strength and timorousness of tendentious, tangerine-colored, and tactless talking toads like Trump.
I just have to believe that as a successful CEO, he is thinking like one and that is usually two steps beyond where most people stop and accept the results.
Even if this is true, it isn't good. He needs to think like a successful head of state/government, not a successful CEO. The United States isn't a business.
Me either. I just have to believe that as a successful CEO, he is thinking like one and that is usually two steps beyond where most people stop and accept the results.
A CEO as narrowly considered in the Anglo-saxon world as one who maximises shareholder return is successful when he externalises costs or tries to bring them down, usually at the expense of durability of what is produced, environmental cost and the cost to broader society.
The reality is that principles costs money. Do you want a healthy society? Then some form of universal healthcare seems the most cost effective way to go about it. Do you want educated people? Then some form of free education is necessary.
If you leave it to the market, only persons who are sufficiently difficult to replace for a company will be provided with healthcare, because for the companies it's cheaper to let a labourer die and replace him, than give him decent coverage.
If you leave it to the market, people will only be educated to the extent necessary and in the fields that the market needs - not because educated citizens collectively make wiser decision for society at large.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 15, 2017 at 15:18#705080 likes
Even if this is true, it isn't good. He needs to think like a successful head of state/government, not a successful CEO. The United States isn't a business.
To a degree, I agree with you that the CEO mindset doesn't transcend into the perfect politician. But our professional politicians were screwing things up so royally, that we had to choose which horse to ride for the next 4 years and Trump was our choice.
Having said that not only do I hope we successfully complete this ride, but I hope that when we look for our next ride, we have better choices.
Until then, what many call "chaos" is actually what change looks like when you are in the middle of it. And the "division" that you hear so much about is change as well but on a personal level.
The fact that we are Americans is our strength and when approached, we stand United and that makes all the difference.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 15, 2017 at 15:30#705130 likes
A CEO as narrowly considered in the Anglo-saxon world as one who maximises shareholder return is successful when he externalises costs or tries to bring them down, usually at the expense of durability of what is produced, environmental cost and the cost to broader society.
The reality is that principles costs money. Do you want a healthy society? Then some form of universal healthcare seems the most cost effective way to go about it. Do you want educated people? Then some form of free education is necessary.
If you leave it to the market, only persons who are sufficiently difficult to replace for a company will be provided with healthcare, because for the companies it's cheaper to let a labourer die and replace him, than give him decent coverage.
If you leave it to the market, people will only be educated to the extent necessary and in the fields that the market needs - not because educated citizens collectively make wiser decision for society at large.
As I explained to Michael, there is no perfect politician nor a perfect CEO but I believe that President Trump has the ability to surround himself with people who are smarter than him, each in their respected positions. They supply the information to President Trump, so he can make the difficult decisions CEO's make on a daily basis. Obama was a community leader and never served a full term as anything higher than a Senator before being elected President. So I think it is fair to say that President Trump was more than qualified to apply for the position and we agreed he had what it takes to get the job done when we elected him.
With the limited time I have right now, let me just remind you that government provided Healthcare and basic life essentials, are not the fundamentals of a Capitalistic society. True our government takes care of those who qualify for Government Aid, as a result of medical condition or poverty wages as well as our aged and infirmed. But that is not something we provide for healthy workers, during their working years of their lives. I think you are suggesting we become a Socialist society or some hybrid the two.
With the limited time I have right now, let me just remind you that government provided Healthcare and basic life essentials, are not the fundamentals of a Capitalistic society. True our government takes care of those who qualify for Government Aid, as a result of medical condition or poverty wages as well as our aged and infirmed. But that is not something we provide for healthy workers, during their working years of their lives. I think you are suggesting we become a Socialist society or some hybrid the two.
I'm suggesting that if you prefer cash over people, people are going to die.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 16, 2017 at 12:42#707550 likes
I'm suggesting that if you prefer cash over people, people are going to die.
It is not that we prefer cash over people Benkei, as American's we are a very empathetic society. It is the way we go about providing medical care, in a consumer based society and it is far from perfect. Personally, I am not a fan of what happened in this last decade to our medical profession but what is done is done. There is no reversing the damage the implementation of the "ACA" has caused in the actual structure in how care is delivered. Doctor's in private practice fled to the umbrella of a for profit hospital/care companies or to the University Medical Centers, for protection of the cattle call that was about to leave their private practice and head to the care centers that the ACA would approve. The problem is that here in Arizona, we had one choice of Insurance companies on the ACA, which is not a marketplace but rather a monopoly on our medical care options. And before the ONE option in Arizona pulled out, for a family of four, the purchase of the premium was $2,400 a month, with an annual individual deductible of $5k per person with a $20k family cap.
If you take the time to do the math, you will realize that the slip of the tongue, Obama made over a decade ago, in his vision of a "redistribution of wealth" was one of his greatest achievements. He single handedly gutted the middle class, with us having to pay the insurance rates I explained above or be fined by the IRS.
Health insurance, just like any insurance you purchase is a roll of the dice, for both the consumer and the provider and the odds right now are not in the consumers favor.
I don't really have time to get into the weeds of medical costs being inflated to the point that a single Tylenol in the hospital can cost $10.00, when you can walk into a drug store and purchase 200 tablets for less than $10.00. The bottom line is there is no consistency in the cost of care across the nation, so you may be able to get knee surgery in Idaho for half the price of what you would pay in Texas for the exact same procedure. Until we can purchase insurance across state lines, we will never solve this problem, unless we go to an all cash practice.
It already is run like an all cash practice in the sense that if you have insurance, the hospital will bill the insurance $5k for a procedure and the insurance company reduces the acceptable payout by 75% and the hospital accepts that 25% as payment in full. If you have no health insurance, the hospital will work with you by reducing your bill by 75% for that same $5k procedure and a payment plan that you can afford.
It's not a reasonable or a sustainable model of medical care but the move back to Doctor dictated care is only for the wealthy patient who can afford boutique like health care.
Until we can purchase insurance across state lines, we will never solve this problem, unless we go to an all cash practice.
I'm covered in the entire world for unforeseen, emergency care for those things covered by basic Dutch healthcare. It's easy for a health insurance company to do. I pay about 3000 USD for that coverage for the entire year for a family of three and have a personal risk of up to 400 USD a year per person, except our youngest - for her the risk is set at 0 EUR. Obviously, that's not the whole story because you would have to compare coverage as well.
Our system doesn't allow an insurer to refuse an insured when this person moves from one insurer to the next. Prior conditions, provided they have been properly disclosed when they became apparant, are not a condition to refuse pay outs. It's also mandatory for people to get insured and plenty of competition. The fact that Arizona had only one insurer, seems to suggest there are some serious barriers to entry to the market - or there's collusion.
Geographic segregation benefits the insurance companies and healthcare providers as it avoids price competition across state borders between healthcare providers, allowing insurance companies to charge higher premiums in "expensive" states. Profits are usually a percentage mark-up on such actual costs.
In any case, come to the Netherlands and benefit from social benefits. Go to work worry free whether you can pay medical bills or get your pants sued off of you.
In any case, come to the Netherlands and benefit from social benefits. Go to work worry free whether you can pay medical bills or get your pants sued off of you.
Reply to Hanover https://www.government.nl/topics/immigration/contents/options-for-entrepreneurs-and-employees-from-abroad/orientation-year-highly-educated-persons
Not necessary as long as you find a job in the Netherlands. There's a NY lawyer working for Simmons & Simmons in Amsterdam. Shouldn't be too hard.
Reply to Benkei Why all the requirements that I be a highly educated? I just want to come over and see what happens, maybe find a job here or there, and take advantage of the cradle to grave benefits you guys give away.
And you didn't answer the question really. I wasn't interested in whether sponsorship was necessary. I wanted to know if you'd sponsor me. It was a hypothetical testing your kindness, but I think I got my answer.
Is Holland anxious to get agéd asylum seeks from the US? At 70, a long-way-from-the-cradle-and-pretty-close-to-the-grave benefit program would come in handy. I'm seeking asylum from oppression, of course. I can't stand Trump and the liberals are either ineffective or have increasingly screwy identity obsessions, so I'm suffering greatly.
Break the grip of the criminal gangs and protect young people by introducing a legal, regulated market for cannabis. We would introduce limits on potency and permit cannabis to be sold through licensed outlets to adults over the age of 18.
Reply to Michael No, I haven't even read the Labour one yet, although I know a thing or two about what will be in it. I knew about the Lib Dem pledge to legalise cannabis, because it made the news, as you'd expect. I agree with it, and I wouldn't object if Labour adopted it.
Reply to Sapientia Shame they can't also pledge to finding a way to make it odourless. That stuff stinks. Not my cup of tea, but an extra £1bn would be nice.
The whole legalization of cannabis thing has gone farther than I thought it would. It's not just that you can buy the plant, but you can buy all sorts of novelties with the extracted THC in it. The argument as I first understood it was that pot was just a natural plant and it should be legal, but what they're selling now is a lab created extract of much higher potency than could ever be found in the plant.
The point being that if they're now allowing over the counter sale of basically a pharmaceutical, why create this odd limitation to just marijuana? What was once specially prohibited now has become specially available.
It's hard to believe that the object of the legalize pot movement was to make THC laced gummy bears generally available.
The whole legalization of cannabis thing has gone farther than I thought it would. It's not just that you can buy the plant, but you can buy all sorts of novelties with the extracted THC in it. The argument as I first understood it was that pot was just a natural plant and it should be legal, but what they're selling now is a lab created extract of much higher potency than could ever be found in the plant.
The point being that if they're now allowing over the counter sale of basically a pharmaceutical, why create this odd limitation to just marijuana? What was once specially prohibited now has become specially available.
It's hard to believe that the object of the legalize pot movement was to make THC laced gummy bears generally available.
The argument as you first understood it is not the argument that I make, and I've ridiculed others for making it. It makes a fallacious appeal to nature. The argument that I make is about liberty, recreation and consistency, and has nothing to do with whether or not it's natural.
It's hard to believe that the object of the legalize pot movement was to make THC laced gummy bears generally available.
Probably wasn't. It'd just be an unintended consequence of a vague regulation.
The argument as I first understood it was that pot was just a natural plant and it should be legal, but what they're selling now is a lab created extract of much higher potency than could ever be found in the plant.
Can't speak for the U.S., but the Lib Dem manifesto specifically says that there will be limits on potency (much like there's limits on the strength of alcohol).
"The Pirates of: The Pirates of the Caribbean; Paid Ransomers Leak No Tales?"
This comes on the heels of a ransomware attack which encrypted the hard drives of thousands of computers across the globe which used an exploit contained in the NSA hacking kit leaks from a few months ago.
So the ransomers are demanding that Disney pay a huge sum of cash to the hackers who stole the upcoming pirates movie (ten days until release), and so far word is Disney isn't planning on paying.
Personally I wouldn't pay either otherwise it incentivizes more of the same theft for ransom. But this marks a very interesting development in the new world of digital media.
Reply to VagabondSpectre I was a little offended by the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie because it failed to touch on the role the Caribbean played in the Atlantic slave trade/Triangular trade.
Reply to Mongrel It's fiction based on events preceding the "Treasure Island" story, set in and around Nassau, circa the slave uprisings which occurred there, and very much grounds itself in real world history (including genuine historical pirates).
In November 2015, the Department of Justice filed a court brief arguing that allowing Manning’s hair to grow out would “pose a significant security risk, and would undermine the USDB’s important military mission.”
People need to preface what Putin says with the fact that he's an ex-KGB agent who is loyal to the cause of restoring the former Soviet Union to its former glory.
Oh, I've been watching it, but I haven't watched the last one or two probably. I ought to do that if I have time laters.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 22, 2017 at 11:31#715540 likes
As I am trying to figure out how to pay for my youngest Indians college, I watch students walk out of Notre Dame Graduation ceremony as Vice President Mike Pence took the stage and two thoughts ran through my head.
1) If I paid my child's tuition to attend Notre Dame University AND they decided to walk out on the VP of the USA? I wouldn't just be livid but I would have been one of the folks BOOING the students as they slunk out in peaceful protest.
2) In an HR position? I would do my research if a Notre Dame graduate applied for a job to see what kind of respect they showed their guest, regardless of their personal opinion of that guest. Because in the real world, you often have to smile and be pleasant when you really feel like telling a person off.
Metaphysician UndercoverMay 22, 2017 at 11:46#715580 likes
If you have no health insurance, the hospital will work with you by reducing your bill by 75% for that same $5k procedure and a payment plan that you can afford.
Is this really true, you can get the hospital to reduce your bill by 75%?
If I paid my child's tuition to attend Notre Dame University AND they decided to walk out on the VP of the USA? I wouldn't just be livid but I would have been one of the folks BOOING the students as they slunk out in peaceful protest.
Why?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 22, 2017 at 12:24#715670 likes
Is this really true, you can get the hospital to reduce your bill by 75%?
Yes. What the hospital bills out is their established price but what they accept is a reduction that is considered "reasonable and customary" which works out to be about 75%. If you don't have insurance, you are your own advocate that remains steadfast in the knowledge of what a "reasonable and customary" charge is and demand that is the cost you should be responsible for.
Example out of Wall Street Journal:
"Say the insurer has set its
reasonable-and-customary rate for this
type of surgery at $1,250, well below the
$5,000 actually charged. Less the worker's
$1,000 deductible, the insurer would pay
out $200, or 80%, of the remaining $250.
The injured worker then is responsible for
the remaining balance of $4,800 – with
the insurer paying just four percent of the
total bill."
As you can see, if the hospital offers "reasonable and customary" reductions to the insurance company, then they certainly can offer you, as a cash patient, the same reduction but you have to demand it, nicely of course. Once you have negotiated the reduction to what is considered "reasonable and customary" you can make a payment on a pending bill, as low as $10.00 a month to the hospital to keep you out of collections. Even if you will never live to pay your bill of at that rate, they cannot send you to collections of any kind because you are making a monthly "good faith payment" and paying all you are able.
As an aside, if your medical bills do wind up in collections, those collections do not impact your FICA score the same way they did 10 years ago. A "good faith payment" and pleasant communications is the way to stay out of collections.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 22, 2017 at 12:32#715690 likes
If I paid the tuition and fees at University of Notre Dame which are $46,237 without financial aid. With room, board, and other fees combined, the total cost of attendance is $62,461 a year?
It is OUR day not just his. (L) Now, if he alone took out student loans, paid the same annual tuition and decided to walk out? I would text him to hold a table for us for the after party while we stayed at the commencement address. 8-)
If I paid the tuition and fees at University of Notre Dame which are $46,237 without financial aid. With room, board, and other fees combined, the total cost of attendance is $62,461 a year?
It is OUR day not just his.
Do you pay for him to listen to Mike Pence? Wouldn't that be a waste of your money? Why is not listening to Mike Pence an end of "your" day as a family?
If I paid the tuition and fees at University of Notre Dame which are $46,237 without financial aid. With room, board, and other fees combined, the total cost of attendance is $62,461 a year?
It is OUR day not just his. (L)
Now, if he alone took out student loans, paid the same annual tuition and decided to walk out? I would text him to hold a table for us for the after party while we stayed at the commencement address.
I didn't even show up to my graduation ceremony. Just had my degree posted to me.
If I paid my child's tuition to attend Notre Dame University AND they decided to walk out on the VP of the USA? I wouldn't just be livid but I would have been one of the folks BOOING the students as they slunk out in peaceful protest.
Blimey Tiff, I was a student in the 1960's. Then we really knew how to walk out of things. And parental disapproval would have made us feel even more damn right. I think that's how it is at some stages of your life :)
Metaphysician UndercoverMay 22, 2017 at 16:51#716030 likes
As you can see, if the hospital offers "reasonable and customary" reductions to the insurance company, then they certainly can offer you, as a cash patient, the same reduction but you have to demand it, nicely of course.
I 've heard of cases where people have asked to pay the same amount as the insurance company is allowed to pay, for the same procedure, and were refused. I've never heard of the hospital accepting such a request. If it's true that you could "demand it", and the hospital would be obliged to give it to you, then it would be illegal for the hospital to charge more to the cash paying patient than to the insurance company. But it's not illegal, and there appears to be very little incentive for the hospital to accept such a demand, even if it's done nicely. The incentive is directed toward the cash paying patient to buy expensive insurance, to avoid the ridiculously inflated hospital bills.
As I am trying to figure out how to pay for my youngest Indians college, I watch students walk out of Notre Dame Graduation ceremony as Vice President Mike Pence took the stage and two thoughts ran through my head.
1) If I paid my child's tuition to attend Notre Dame University AND they decided to walk out on the VP of the USA? I wouldn't just be livid but I would have been one of the folks BOOING the students as they slunk out in peaceful protest.
2) In an HR position? I would do my research if a Notre Dame graduate applied for a job to see what kind of respect they showed their guest, regardless of their personal opinion of that guest. Because in the real world, you often have to smile and be pleasant when you really feel like telling a person off.
Tiff, I take it you were likewise disturbed by the hecklers who yelled at Obama when he spoke at Notre Dame in 2009? Indeed, I would expect you were more disturbed by it, as yelling during a speech is more disruptive than "slinking out in peaceful protest."
I take it you were also disturbed by Arizona State University's initial decision not to confer an honorary degree on Obama when he spoke there (also in 2009), saying that he was devoid of accomplishments? Did that decision reflect the need to pay courtesy to your guests, even when you feel like "telling them off"?
Poor Mike? Nah. It's the students who stayed who spoiled things. A completely empty room would have been a perfectly apt reflection of the nature of his speech.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff In Pennsylvania, the horse and buggy Amish have negotiated with hospitals to provide care at reasonable rates. The community of Amish assumes the responsibility for paying for health care. They are shrewd, and have learned what a reasonable price for care is.
I passed through Manchester Victoria Station last night, an hour before a suicide bomber self-detonated there, at the entrance to the Arena, killing at least 21 other people. BBC News.
This was about half a mile from the site of an IRA bomb in the 1990's, the last big explosion on the mainland before the peace process.
I've got to say, I sometimes think of myself as too sympathetic to the other fellow's point of view, but I can't find any sympathy in me for such an act. In what way are the young fans of Ariana Grande in any kind of war with anyone? - And it's sad what tiny things it does to you: I found myself thinking, did I see anyone Asian acting oddly?
I saw Leonard Cohen at the Arena a few years ago. Listening to his melancholy songs this morning. 'You want it darker?'
Sure. But I don't think Arkady was calling Tiff out for telling a falsehood. It's likely true that she "wouldn't just be livid but ... would have been one of the folks BOOING the students as they slunk out in peaceful protest". He's simply insinuating that she wouldn't have felt the same way were it Obama giving a speech. Which then suggests that her values are hypocritical (or discriminate based on political affiliation).
Your post is just ad hom. Let's assume the hypocrisy exists as you assume. So what?
I wasn't aware that questions could be ad-hom. I think you need a basic course in logic (is that ad-hom, too? Please let me know). In any event, whether or not there was hypocrisy, my question is a valid one. People generally seem outraged when their party is adversely treated and oddly complacent when the other party is so treated (you may know something about that - is that ad-hom number 2?). Perhaps Tiff is an exception (though, honestly, I'm not holding my breath).
Reply to Michael My point is that she didn't respond to the substance of the post. If all she was saying is "you suck," then I'm saying she's not responsive.
Well, thanks for filling me in, then. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle (as GI Joe used to tell me).
Be sarcastic, but it doesn't change the fact that "Why are you being an idiot?" is just as much an ad hom is "you're an idiot" (and, no, I'm not calling you an idiot; It's just an example).
Be sarcastic, but it doesn't change the fact that "Why are you being an idiot?" is just as much an ad hom is "you're an idiot" (and, no, I'm not calling you an idiot; It's just an example).
And my question was nothing of the sort: I didn't say "why are you a hypocrite, Tiff?" She may well have been likewise disturbed by Obama's treatment at ND and ASU, and my question allowed for that possibility. However, if I had to place a bet on it, I would go with "not disturbed."
Ironically, you are exhibiting the very sort of behavior which is at issue here, as, had someone decried what they perceived to be adverse or unfair treatment towards Obama, and another poster asked them if they were likewise disturbed when Trump was treated in a similar fashion, you wouldn't have said "boo" about poster #2's question.
You are put off by what you perceive to be an insinuation of hypocrisy in conservatives, but you would be just fine with a line of questioning which potentially exposed hypocrisy in liberals.
You are put off by what you perceive to be an insinuation of hypocrisy in conservatives, but you would be just fine with a line of questioning which potentially exposed hypocrisy in liberals.
Do you pay for him to listen to Mike Pence? Wouldn't that be a waste of your money? Why is not listening to Mike Pence an end of "your" day as a family?
No, I did not pay for my child to listen to Vice President Pence. But I did raise my children to be respectful of other's, even in the event that they do not agree with them. If those walkouts did not agree with Vice President Pence speaking, they knew well enough in advance to have enough respect, to choose not to attend the commencement.
But no, that common level of respect, that decency of decorum is not taught in school and nor do I think it should have to be because it starts from the home and carries onward.
As I stated, if my child had paid his own way thru school and he chose to walk out? I would text him to hold a table, until WE were done showing the respect that our children should know to do as well, if we raised them right.
There is a degree of accountability when it comes to what kind of moral, ethical and graceful compass you instill in your children and for that, I am and always will be their Mother and in my opinion, their behavior is a direct reflection on how they were raised, for better or for worse. So if I had paid and they walked out while I stayed, it wouldn't ruin our day but that is not to say there wouldn't be hell to pay for such a disrespectful choice of behavior.
I lean toward Democrat, but I think Obama gravely screwed Syria by assuring rebels and then walking away. I kind of doubt trump will accomplish anything so bloody.
No, I did not pay for my child to listen to Vice President Pence. But I did raise my children to be respectful of other's, even in the event that they do not agree with them. If those walkouts did not agree with Vice President Pence speaking, they knew well enough in advance to have enough respect, to choose not to attend the commencement.
But no, that common level of respect, that decency of decorum is not taught in school and nor do I think it should have to be because it starts from the home and carries onward.
This assumes that everyone agrees Pence should be accorded respect. People can respectfully disagree on that matter. Pence is maybe less clear but how about Frank Ancona? Should we have a common level of respect for him? And then there's the fact that the school invites this person to a graduation event that's about its students. The students don't get a vote and it seems odd to demand they'd miss out on everything because you think it isn't decent to walk out on Pence. Where Pence is provided with a platform, the students aren't, so what is left to create equality between Pence and those students, is for the students to "take the stage" and leave. They also could've heckled him or grabbed the mic and told him off. So as far as respect goes, this was pretty decent, considering the alternatives.
Now, walking out of a conversation, that's a whole different story.
[quote]There is a degree of accountability when it comes to what kind of moral, ethical and graceful compass you instill in your children and for that, I am and always will be their Mother and in my opinion, their behavior is a direct reflection on how they were raised, for better or for worse. So if I had paid and they walked out while I stayed, it wouldn't ruin our day but that is not to say there wouldn't be hell to pay for such a disrespectful choice of behavior.
If my daughter walked out, at least I'd know she had conviction. I wouldn't be happy she'd sit through something she strongly disagrees with or would be "forced" to listen to someone who has negative browny points with her.
If my daughter walked out, at least I'd know she had conviction.
I am not sure how showing respect for someone, whether we like them or not, is showing a lack of personal conviction but that is your circle to square.
Where you would praise your daughter for walking out based on her convictions, I would praise my son for being able to maintain his composure, showing respect and handling himself like the young gentleman he has been raised to be.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 23, 2017 at 18:21#717820 likes
Ought parents pay their kids' tuition with the expectation that they're buying control?
That is a very good question Mongrel, one that is testing my long held belief that I know better than to place the responsibility of my expectations on anyone other than myself. For I have learned through too many disappointments, that by misplacing my expectations onto someone else, I am setting myself up to be disappointed. Instead, I usually embrace the idea that with no expectations of others, I am rarely, if ever, disappointed in how something turns out and on occasion I am pleasantly surprised by the actions of others.
But now you have me wondering why, that personally held philosophy, is not being applied to my children. It is entirely possible that I am expecting him to conduct himself properly, my expectation, until he is off on his own, paying his own bills.
As a side note, yesterday afternoon, my youngest indian received his letter of acceptance to the one school he wishes to attend and that is Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University . Needless to say we are extremely proud of the him and all the work he has put in, to achieve the goal of becoming a Riddler. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University where it really is Rocket Science!
It is entirely possible that I am expecting him to conduct himself properly, my expectation, until he is off on his own, paying his own bills.
While you're paying his bills, you want him to do what you would do. Once he can pay his own bills, then you will recognize that he is a separate individual capable to making his own decisions.
I just sat through 2.5 hours of speechifying regarding error prevention (in the healthcare setting). One of the topics was: "Why do people fail to speak out when they notice that something is wrong?"
What sort of protest would you find acceptable for a new college grad?
While you're paying his bills, you want him to do what you would do. Once he can pay his own bills, then you will recognize that he is a separate individual capable to making his own decisions.
This is a very neurotic way to go about things. First of all, I think a child should be treated like a partnership - not like a slave. In a partnership there are give and takes. There's no "you want him to do this" and that's the end. You need him for the future, he's his own person - you don't want to alienate him by being an ass. (furthermore, he may rightfully choose not to go to college in the first place if you're going to be such an ass about it - or be vengeful about it in the future)
It's much more effective to make him feel indebted to you. Grandmothers are very effective at doing this. A bright red letter pops in your mail, your granny's handwriting on it. You flip it open, read how much she misses you because you haven't visited lately, and boom - you feel guilty and schedule your next visit ;)
My condolences to the victims of yesterday's bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester (22 dead and counting thus far, plus scores of wounded). I had initially suspected that this was the work of radical Anglicans (could you blame me?), but when an Islamist group claimed responsibility and the prime suspect was identified as a second-generation Libyan named Salmon Abedi, I was forced to revise this belief. Just goes to show that one oughtn't jump to conclusions.
It is not heroic to speak up every time you disagree with someone. Sometimes you really aren't the most important person in the room. You can be civil without abandoning your beliefs.
Just some platitudes that more recent generations find annoying.
I am not sure how showing respect for someone, whether we like them or not, is showing a lack of personal conviction but that is your circle to square.
That's not what I said.
And you forget the paragraphs before that on the issue whether we should accord everyone with respect and whether we should expect that in situations from people who had no say on who shows up and should then be forced to choose between not attending at all or this. The speaker and speakees aren't on the same level here, one sends, the other is condemned to listen; there's no equality.
So again; Ancona? Yes, no, why?
Personally, I'd hope everybody stands up and walks out on a speech by a known racist. I'm not saying I would walk out on Pence but I certainly recognise that some people think he's bad enough that they cannot in good conscience remain seated. Instead of saying they're disrespectful (which is just another way of dismissing their voice) we can respect their choices and their silent voices.
A child should be treated neither like a partner nor a slave, but like a child.
Well a "child" who goes to college isn't exactly a child anymore. He should be treated like an adult. Earning money right away shouldn't be a requirement for decent treatment. Or else, when the "child" does start earning money big time, you may see $0 of it. People are often stupid - they underestimate their reliance on others, and put too much emphasis on current conditions, and too little on future contingencies. What if you as a parent end up having ALS and being stuck to a bed - who will take care of you then, if not your child? This murderous parenting attitude of "treat him like a child" is very prevalent, and does more harm than good to both parents and children by fostering hatred between them. And no, good intentions don't cut it. Good intentions coupled with stupidity are worse than bad intentions coupled with indifference.
Sure, except now everyone on the right is known as a racist by the left.
Apart from the fact this has little to do with what I said, this is a caricature as well.
That said, what is "the right" in your opinion? The alt-right is pretty xenophobic in practise. Social and cultural conservatism tend towards discrimination as a logical consequence of their aim to maintain a status quo (or even move backwards). There's an issue with progressives, because those people are for change. But also with people too different to be considered part of their social or cultural "ideal". This could be gays, hispanics, blacks or muslims or whatever, depending on what they believe. As a result, it is much more likely that racists identify themselves as "right" instead of "left" but you can't conclude from that, that the "right" is racist.
It's true we have to educate people to live better lives, but it's also true that (given current circumstances) people also have to educate themselves if they want to live good lives.
Reply to Agustino A child is to be raised to be a good person, not as a potential safety net if your life takes a downturn. I'd expect a good person would care for his parents, but any parent who raises his kid specifically to protect that parent's future interests is not such a good parent.
A child is to be raised to be a good person, not as a potential safety net if your life takes a downturn. I'd expect a good person would care for his parents, but any parent who raises his kid specifically to protect that parent's future interests is not such a good parent.
Why not? That's the job. To create a social mechanism/body (the family) which takes care of itself in perpetuity. We are interdependent - so we must acknowledge our interdependence and arrange things such that all of us are safe and can support each other if necessary.
Familial interdependence is not based on a quid pro quo but on emotional attachment. It's doubtful family ties would maintain purely out of a sense of legal duty, which is why if family members aren't emotionally attached, it's doubtful you'll have much a family at all.
Familial interdependence is not based on a quid pro quo but on emotional attachment.
Okay, I agree with that. But starting from this point, what's the best way to strengthen this emotional attachment? Isn't it to treat the child, when you are the parent, as an equally valuable and useful member of the family, entitled to bring his own independence to the game? That's the best way to ensure emotional attachment. Certainly making a fuss about you giving money and him having to obey etc. ain't gonna help. All that tells the child is that "my parent is a fucking asshole, best to get rid of him as soon as possible".
I did watch half the first episode of that but don't get the attraction or what's new about it. It's slapstick, right? Anyway, as @Hanover would say, cartoons are for kids and you probably only watch them because having been treated like an adult when you were a kid, you've now decided to balance things by treating yourself like a kid when you're an adult. This is how liberal parenting destroys lives.
Ah, just the answer I'd expect from one suffering from child-adult adult-child syndrome.
Well, in the words of the great Rick Sanchez, "I've got about a thousand memories of your dumb little ass and about six of them are pleasant. The rest is annoying garbage. So why don't you do us both a favor and pull the trigger? Do it! Do it, motherfucker! Pull the fucking trigger!"
Oh yeah, like the day after april fool's day, when they did the opposite of an April Fool's joke and released the first episode. That was a year and a half since MR poopy butthole said it would be before the next season as well. Had to fool us by keeping their word, and delivering on episode after joking about it.
Reply to Agustino He only fights for truth, justice, and the bushido way.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 26, 2017 at 20:53#723580 likes
Mongrel you can stand at the front and I'll bring up the rear. Much like a cattle drive, you can be point rider and I'll be the drag. Have you ever ridden a horse?
Yeah, I agree that cartoons are stupid, unless it's The Family Guy or The Simpsons, and I think the Flintstones were ok way back when.
Simpsons did it! If you like The Family Guy, then I don't get why you wouldn't like The American Dad, The South Park or The Rick and Morty. The Simpsons and The Flintstones are too tame and politically correct. Lame in comparison.
Simpsons did it! If you like The Family Guy, then I don't get why you wouldn't like The American Dad, The South Park or The Rick and Morty. The Simpsons and The Flintstones are too tame and politically correct. Lame in comparison.
I watch family guy and American dad when they come out, and occasionally the Simpsons. Rick and Morty is the best thing on TV at the moment in my opinion though, leagues ahead.
Though, a couple weeks ago that family guy hockeycop joke cracked me up pretty good.
You thought it was too much too? Good, then I'll be brutal. I watched like not even five minutes of the first episode, and what I gathered is that it's going to be about a non-speaking character having everyone else talk about it constantly, because of its rawly morbid and pointless behavior.
See, that's no fun. Rick and Morty keeps dangly a point and then stripping it away at the end. Making something seem super important, or reoccurring, and then offing it, or simply never mentioning it again. It's intensely clever.
Reply to Wosret I overstated the similarity. The reason I associate them is they were both on TV back when I had cable. They both messed with my mind. :)
Reply to Michael Me too, I missed it. It seems the video is by a man called Murakami. Kirsten Dunst is co-writing and directing a movie of the Bell Jar starring Dakota Fanning. The things that pass one by.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 29, 2017 at 11:40#728860 likes
You cannot hear what has been heard.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 29, 2017 at 11:51#728870 likes
Today if my first day on the job of working with an elderly man who has restored Corvettes since the early 50's. Going from Corvette part swap meet, to swap meet on their family vacations, collecting valuable parts as they went. Fast forward to today where this 73yr old man has all the 'price worthy info' about each part in his head, about some 40k parts for every year shy of somewhere in the 80's I imagine. All need to be inventoried, photographed, bar coded, wire tied and stored logically for the years it could take to sell off his inventory, at the right price.
This would be really easy to "download" if it were already in a computer but this will be that conversion from mind to computer input.
Wish me patience and understanding of another generation, something I imagine I will appreciate more later, than I realize now. Isn't that the way it works?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 29, 2017 at 11:56#728880 likes
Have you ever visited The Philosophy Forum Facebook page? If you haven't been there, check it out here. 8-)
Reply to Wosret This guy worked with big lawyers telling them to take 4 days off every 3 months. Clearly that's what made them successful :D (NOT those connections with rich people ;) )
What's the upsell? Just the books, or does he have some $5,000 seminars like Tony Robbins? >:O
https://jordanbpeterson.com/bible-series/ >:O
https://www.quora.com/I-screwed-up-my-life-Is-it-too-late -> check his answer here, blatantly advertising HIS OWN company self-authoring...
The only success there is to follow in his footsteps. Start a company. Start advertising how you'll revolutionise people's lives and give them what they want. Build a mental movie for them about how great it will be and feel. Put up some videos, and build your reputation as an authority. Repeat.
Seriously, so easy to make money if you have no integrity and are willing to sell shit. This self-help industry is piss easy. Push the right buttons and BAM, SCORED!
I just checked him out cause he was mentioned on a youtube channel that I'm pretty sure is stalking me. He said that he only knew one thing. Is that so hard to believer? Can't give him that? Maybe you can do a whole lot with just that.
I just checked him out cause he was mentioned on a youtube channel that I'm pretty sure is stalking me. He said that he only knew one thing. Is that so hard to believer? Can't give him that? Maybe you can do a whole lot with just that.
I predict that self-help will become the heroin of the future - it will make some people amazingly wealthy, and everyone else will remain slaves glued to their seminars.
The real "secrets" that people are looking for - those that can truly change their lives - will not be spouted by someone who has massive popularity - quite the contrary, they will be hidden, and known by few.
I'm not personally into self help stuff, if you're worried about my well-being or anything. As I said, I saw him the first time yesterday because of this video:
Reply to Wosret Yes I'm not saying you are into self-help, more than anything I was just using the video you posted to put my finger on a modern phenomenon (self-help) and its dangers.
Regarding the last video - yes, there is scientific proof that writing (not talking about) past events helps improve your situation. Minimally - but it does.
Look at this last video though. What role does the hypnotic music play? What's the effect of repeated appeals to science? What's the role of the mental movies that are created by the metaphorical language? What do you feel when you see the images of someone struggling with the boulder, pushing it up the mountain?
1:10 - "you can tell you've mastered things because when you go somewhere and you act, things turn out as you want them" + showing images of someone playing guitar to two smiling girls on holiday. Why? What's the message? What does your mind think about? If you have failed even once to ask a girl out - despite even hundreds of successes after - the video will make you remember it. You haven't mastered it. Look, that time it didn't work out. You're missing out. You're in a bad situation. You're not as good as you can be. That's the message there. Now you're liable to be sold to easily - your pain-point is vivid in your mind.
MAP and MASTER - pushing the right buttons to persuade.
"This will bring you peace, bring you calm. It's so simple - yet so difficult [...] When your demons call out [...] It's time to go to work, work ends [...] decide to play bla bla "
MENTAL MOVIE that you can relate to - you're living it, going through it, feeling it as you're watching. Followed by chemical and scientific explanations to add social proof and authority. This is EXACTLY how a sales pitch must be structured. And the insidious bit is that great salesmanship doesn't sell you something today. It plants the seeds for selling you something tomorrow.
No man, you're constantly, perpetually non-stop moralizing.
When you don't get positive feed back from others, you can either accept that, and change, or decide that they're worse than they think, and you're better than they think.
You're growing a monster inside of you. The more you talk about what shit everyone else is, the bigger it gets.
The more you talk about what shit everyone else is, the bigger it gets.
Lol - calm down, I haven't said anyone is shit. I don't know why you get that idea. I'm just using the video you posted as an occasion to list some of my conclusions with regards to self-help. Has nothing to do with you. So why do you take it so personally? Quoting Agustino
I was just using the video you posted to put my finger on a modern phenomenon (self-help) and its dangers.
When you don't get positive feed back from others, you can either accept that, and change, or decide that they're worse that they think, and you're better than they think.
Okay fair enough, but I'm not looking for feedback from people, especially not in a thread like The Shoutbox. And generally speaking, I don't care what others think of me. I don't live for them, I live for myself. Why would I bother to be concerned what X and Y are saying about me? I don't care one iota if I'm better or worse than X or Y thinks. As far as I'm concerned, what they think doesn't determine who I am. I'm not the prisoner of their thinking.
No! Now I have to go write about it in my journal (diaries are for girls).
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 30, 2017 at 14:14#731040 likes
Okay, I seem to be getting my 'Vette' bearings and building a system to keep track of all these parts. THANK GOD for the advancement of technology!
I asked if I could drive this fully restored, topless 1954 Corvette Coupe and he actually said "Sure". I was flabbergasted because I never expected an okay to do such a thing and it must have been obvious on my face when he asked if I knew how to drive a stick shift? Sure I do! Then I remembered grinding my gears, riding the clutch and once I am above 3rd I am not going back for anything. So I made the safe choice in politely declining, only for today. ;) Kinda fun that he likes to set a carrot and being the work horse I am, I keep moving forward. (Y)
A man in a hot air balloon is lost. He lowers a bit and sees a woman walking on the road. He calls her: "I have promised to my friends to meet them in an hour, but I have no idea where I am."
The woman calls back:
'You are in a balloon about 10 meters above the ground. You are between 51 and 52 degrees north latitude and between 5 and 6 degrees west longitude '.
"You are a computer scientist," says the man.
"Indeed, how do you know that?" Asks the woman.
"Well," says the man, "you gave me a technically perfect explanation, but I do not know what to do with that information and still have no idea where I am. In all honesty, you did not help me and it cost me my time. "
"And you're a manager?" Replies the woman.
"Right, how do you know that?"
"Well, you do not know where you are, or where to go. A large amount of air brought you where you are now. You have made a promise that you had no idea how to keep and you expect people who are beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is that you are in exactly the same situation as five minutes ago, except that now it's suddenly my fault."
When you don't get positive feed back from others, you can either accept that, and change, or decide that they're worse than they think, and you're better than they think.
You're growing a monster inside of you. The more you talk about what shit everyone else is, the bigger it gets.
And generally speaking, I don't care what others think of me. I don't live for them, I live for myself. Why would I bother to be concerned what X and Y are saying about me? I don't care one iota if I'm better or worse than X or Y thinks. As far as I'm concerned, what they think doesn't determine who I am. I'm not the prisoner of their thinking.
Can you not self-reflect for a moment and realize that your response to Wosret was exactly what he accused you of?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiffWhy don't you just create a price list for the parts you know you have at least one of and then put that on a website and start selling parts? It's going to be easier to just look for the part after the sales order comes in as opposed to organizing every one of them before you start selling. If you get an order that you can't fill, you'll just have to let them know you're sold out. It just seems like you're going to be stuck for years sorting through a massive inventory without any cash flow. It's more fun locating a 1964 alternator when someone is paying you to find it as opposed to finding it just to slap a label on it and shelve it for later.
Reply to Agustino That video was made by someone other than Peterson, who is a very sensible and well spoken man. He's also courageously battling the pomo leftist forces on Canada's campuses. I quite enjoy watching his videos (his own, not the cheesy mock ups).
Reply to Thorongil Why does he battle pomo leftists? Why does it take courage?
The writing stuff down thing is legit. Parents who have to spend a lot of time in neonatal intensive care are encouraged to keep journals to stay sane.
Can you not self-reflect for a moment and realize that your response to Wosret was exactly what he accused you of?
I have reflected and my response had nothing to do with it. Show me how my response was the same. My response merely shows I have the sufficient self-esteem required not to be perturbed by what others say of me, whether it is for good or bad. Where am I saying shit about others, as Wosret claimed?
Reply to Agustino I would recommend going to his channel and watching his talks (not the lectures, which are a bit dry, but you can if you're interested).
My response merely shows I have the sufficient self-esteem required not to be perturbed by what others say of me, whether it is for good or bad.
No one cares about your level of self-esteem or whether you were perturbed. No one intended to knock your self esteem, and no one really cared if you were upset. Your response simply declared defiance, with the implication (although more explicit now) that unflappable certainty is of some higher order than actually considering another viewpoint. That is what I took Wosret's objection to your posts to be, and your response was consistent with that objection.
Your response simply declared defiance, with the implication (although more explicit now) that unflappable certainty is of some higher order than actually considering another viewpoint.
Well I do understand (I think at least) his viewpoint, and I've seen other people in the past express it. But generally it's about someone getting insulted way too easily, as if I had a responsibility not to voice my opinion about things merely because others feel insecure about hearing a critical opinion about something they do - as if that somehow was a criticism of them as people.
So yes, I am defiant to that, because I simply don't see why anyone should be upset about what others think. I'm not going to get upset if Wosret or anyone else thinks what I listen to is stupid or whatever.
That is what I took Wosret's objection to your posts to be, and your response was consistent with that objection.
Okay, I see. I never understood his objection to be this though. It seems that he was more concerned that I somehow insulted him by critiquing the video he posted. Or I somehow told him it's not good to watch it. I did neither of those.
Freedom where? Just on the campuses? Or all across Canada?
Both in a way. There are a couple bills he has objected to, one which would apply to Ontario and the other to Canada as a whole. As for campuses, I believe he's already been blocked from speaking at a couple, while at those he has spoken, the attempt has been made to disrupt his talks.
Both in a way. There are a couple bills he has objected to, one which would apply to Ontario and the other to Canada as a whole. As for campuses, I believe he's already been blocked from speaking at a couple, while at those he has spoken, the attempt has been made to disrupt his talks.
Bills related to freedom of expression? Were these private universities? Or state funded ones?
They are bills that could severely curtail freedom of expression, yes, especially in light of the fact that Canada has these things called Social Justice Tribunals (I kid you not!).
I'm trying to grasp what kind of power a university administrator can actually enjoy. Money is power. Are they getting kick-backs from politicians or businesses? Or is it more of a perceived power (which can be just as attractive as real power, I think.)
So the private university won't ping a freedom of expression concern. A private school can employ nuns and have a freakin' rosary hanging from a wall if it wants to. A public institution is a different matter.
I'm trying to grasp what kind of power a university administrator can actually enjoy. Money is power. Are they getting kick-backs from politicians? Or is it more of a perceived power (which can be just as attractive as real power, I think.)
The administrative class at today's universities has ballooned in size, becoming highly bureaucratized and adopting a corporate model of governance. So too have their salaries ballooned, while the same can't be said of professors, adjuncts, TAs, GAs, etc. Also, being a college president, especially of a big university, gives one access to state politics and I'm sure presidents get kick backs from politicians and vice versa.
Reply to Thorongil OK. But I still don't see them being anything but puppets. Who is actually pulling the strings? Who wants to limit freedom of expression and why?
Reply to Agustino You and Hanover shouldn't argue. You have a lot in common. When I commented that women might feel defeated by Trump's victory, Hanover posted a picture of the penetration of the flag at Iwo Jima. Don't you wish you'd thought of that?
OK. But I still don't see them being anything but puppets. Who is actually pulling the strings? Who wants to limit freedom of expression and why?
:-| Certain administrators, professors, and students do. I don't understand the demand for a conspiracy. At the moment, left-wing activists have a vice grip on the humanities, social sciences, and administrations at many colleges and universities, so they naturally try to muzzle those whom they perceive as disagreeing with them because 1) they can, in many cases, 2) they want to retain or expand their power, and/or 3) they don't value free speech to begin with and prefer being authoritarians.
You and Hanover shouldn't argue. You have a lot in common. When I commented that women might feel defeated by Trump's victory, Hanover posted a picture of the penetration of the flag at Iwo Jima. Don't you wish you'd thought of that?
What does any of this have to do with whether or not you want to meet Bilo?! :s
Reply to Thorongil It sounds like the problem you're describing is mostly limited to the culture within universities. It sucks that people who propose to open minds are crippled by closed ones of their own.
Some of our elders teach us by showing us what a fucking fool looks like.
Reply to Benkei It is surprising that you are surprised. Maltreatment of children internationally is at endemic proportions, the prevalence of which clearly exposes negligence of governments and communities to take a more responsible role to protecting children's rights more effectively. Identifying risks for a start, like that bullshit and proper intervention strategies. The assumption that mothers naturally have maternal instincts without consideration to the mental health and other risks associated with child maltreatment is barbaric and that needs to change.
"One third of girls in the developing world are married before the age of 18 and 1 in 9 are married before the age of 15" - girls make up almost twice as much of the hundreds of millions of victims of physical, emotional and sexual violence, and are told to cover their wounds by being pretty and keeping their mouths shut. Fuck that.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 12:32#732490 likes
Why don't you just create a price list for the parts you know you have at least one of and then put that on a website and start selling parts?
Ooo Hanover, you are in lock step with how we are doing this inventory and sell off! During the week when we are not inventorying, we are listing on Corvette parts selling sites and when we are further along, we will let his clients and vendors know that our virtual store is open for business and adding inventory daily. In the Fall, we are also planning to attend an antique car swap meet in Pomona CA and another in Bloomington IL.
In the mood for a road trip?
In any case, I was surprised at the prevalence in the US. It's one thing to disagree about policy; it's quite another when fundamental values aren't shared.
Did you mean "typical barbaric Pentecostal atrocity"? Although given that it's legal, better to call it a typical barbaric Floridian atrocity.
Just to put that into perspective, the UK has a minimum age of 16 requiring parental consent if they are below 18 years of age since 1929.
In the Netherlands it was 15 for women and 18 for men since 1808, which was raised to 16 for women in 1838. In 1985 it was raised to 18 for both partners.
More than half of US states don't have a minimum age. Not really a problem for just Florida then.Quoting TimeLine
"One third of girls in the developing world are married before the age of 18 and 1 in 9 are married before the age of 15" - girls make up almost twice as much of the hundreds of millions of victims of physical, emotional and sexual violence, and are told to cover their wounds by being pretty and keeping their mouths shut. Fuck that.
(Y)
I think I'm going to enroll my daughter into Muay Thai...
Reply to Michael I'm not a big man myself (1.67 m) and did Judo at a very high level, including all the locks and throws that weren't allowed in tournaments. I can tell you for a fact that there's an upper limit here as well. About 30 kg weight difference is about the maximum difference I could cope with. It's unlikely a girl would be as strong, so the difference would be smaller.
(2)?The county court judge of any county in the state may, in the exercise of his or her discretion, issue a license to marry to any male or female under the age of 18 years, upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the parents of a child.
(3)?When the fact of pregnancy is verified by the written statement of a licensed physician, the county court judge of any county in the state may, in his or her discretion, issue a license to marry:
(a)?To any male or female under the age of 18 years upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the expectant parents of a child; or
(b)?To any female under the age of 18 years and male over the age of 18 years upon the female’s application sworn under oath that she is an expectant parent.
I'd suggest jujutsu. Locks and throws are probably more effective than strikes against a larger opponent.
Not true. Grappling is more effective if the fight ends on the floor (AND you are sufficiently strong - if the other person COMPLETELY overpowers you, then you're dead), most conflicts don't end up like that. If one guy falls to the floor knocked the fuck out then the other has already won.
The trick is to scare the other sufficiently for them to back down fearing injury, before it breaks into a full blown fight.
English allows flexible sentence construction. So maybe differing construction just signifies that a lost common language had that flexibility. As languages developed in isolation, some lost the original flexibility?
It's 18 without parental consent. 16 requires parental consent. Where are you getting your info?
From here, Florida has an exception that "Younger parties may obtain license in case of pregnancy or birth of child". So if you get a girl younger than 16 pregnant it's legal to marry her.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 13:07#732660 likes
Arizona: If you are 16 or 17 years old, you must have the notarized consent of your parents or legal guardian. If you are under sixteen (16), you must have the notarized consent of your parents or legal guardianas well as a court order.
Just how easy do you think it is to get a court order approving of an 10 yr old girl marrying a 50 yr old man?
(2)?The county court judge of any county in the state may, in the exercise of his or her discretion, issue a license to marry to any male or female under the age of 18 years, upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the parents of a child.
(3)?When the fact of pregnancy is verified by the written statement of a licensed physician, the county court judge of any county in the state may, in his or her discretion, issue a license to marry:
(a)?To any male or female under the age of 18 years upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the expectant parents of a child; or
(b)?To any female under the age of 18 years and male over the age of 18 years upon the female’s application sworn under oath that she is an expectant parent.
That doesn't seem to require any parental consent either.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 13:13#732720 likes
Parental consent is necessary to have intercourse before age 16 or the parent or guardian can press charges. If charges are pressed by the guardian or parent, against the over 18 person, they will go before the judge and if convicted will be obligated to register as a Sex Offender.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I think we should all turn back to the scripture where Jesus raped that 9 year old girl and reflect about how we should consider the morality of the issue.
Yes it is illegal and the parents can press charges.
Against who? Against the 14 year old kid? Or against the 12 year old one? How will they decide who did something illegal? Do both of them get sex offender status?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 13:18#732790 likes
Reply to Mongrel What to do if Jesus is not the basis of our moral compasses?
"And in those days, Jesus was given the daughter of a friend in order to be joined in marriage to her. She was six and the time, so Jesus held off raping her. But then when she was nine years of age, lo Jesus realized that she was plenty old enough and set about raping her."
I think we should all turn back to the scripture where Jesus raped that 9 year old girl and reflect about how we should consider the morality of the issue.
What the hell are you speaking of?! :s
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 13:19#732830 likes
Yes it is illegal and the parents can press charges.
Except some parents don't press charges but press their daughter into marriage instead. And we all know that rape in a marriage isn't possible... For christ's sake. :’(
Parental consent is necessary to have intercourse before age 16 or the parent or guardian can press charges. If charges are pressed by the guardian or parent, against the over 18 person, they will go before the judge and if convicted will be obligated to register as a Sex Offender.
This seem wrong. According to this, the law only states "A child under 16 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity, regardless of the age of the defendant. A child who is at least 16 years of age and less than 18 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity if the defendant is 24 years of age or older."
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 13:21#732880 likes
Against who? Against the 14 year old kid? Or against the 12 year old one? How will they decide who did something illegal? Do both of them get sex offender status?
Hanover would be better apt to answer this question but either guardian, over either child, could press charges.
Reply to Agustino Christians believe Jesus presented the model of behavior we should all follow. If you're a Christian, then strictly speaking, you should marry a child and rape her. If you don't get around to it because you're busy... ok. But you should... rape a child.
Christians believe Jesus presented the model of behavior we should all follow. If you're a Christian, then strictly speaking, you should marry a child and rape her. If you don't get around to it because you're busy... ok. But you should... rape a child.
This seem wrong. According to this, the law only states "A child under 16 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity, regardless of the age of the defendant. A child who is at least 16 years of age and less than 18 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity if the defendant is 24 years of age or older."
I can see the light you are shedding on the exact age of consent to have sex. I appreciate the clarification.
"And in those days, Jesus was given the daughter of a friend in order to be joined in marriage to her. She was six and the time, so Jesus held off raping her. But then when she was nine years of age, lo Jesus realized that she was plenty old enough and set about raping her."
John 57:3-9
There is no John 57. It stops at John 21. What is your source?
Hanover would be better apt to answer this question but either guardian, over either child, could press charges.
Usually statutory rape requires a minimum age of the offender and a maximum age of the victim, so it shouldn't be possible to sue in the event of a 12 year old and a 14 year old.
Usually statutory rape requires a minimum age of the offender and a maximum age of the victim, so it shouldn't be possible to sue in the event of a 12 year old and a 14 year old.
But you were speaking of a child being pregnant and THAT was a satisfier in the eyes of the law, to allow a marriage, without the consent of the guardians.
Why in God's creation would a guardian over a female child cover up that the child had been raped? (N)
I'm sure they have all sorts of reasons. Perhaps they don't want to be involved in a lengthy court case or are happy the rapist has to provide for their child. Or maybe they're just douchebags with little sense for morality.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 13:37#733160 likes
Alas, I must get to church ahead of the line that will be forming in front of the Confessional.
Can you believe that?
More than half of US states don't have a minimum age. Not really a problem for just Florida then.
Hence the assumption that parents are 'owners' of this responsibility that assumes unequivocal protection of their children as though the rights of children outside of this domestic landscape is somehow non-existent. I am hoping to one day become a permanent carer, meaning that I take on the responsibility of permanently taking care of a child from infancy up until they are legally considered adults whose parents cannot, which is almost like adoption without the ownership, like being in a committed relationship without a wedding ring. The psychology behind permanent care is an attitude of taking responsibility and showing love to someone that you don't 'own' in someway. Why is this sense of ownership allowed that somehow takes away the authority of universal principles of human rights when it comes to children?
Reply to Benkei
It really doesn't matter tbh. Style is nonsense. Strength is more important than people would like to believe in reality. Sure, people would like to think they can stand up against a 200 pound mugged faced unshaved rapist who lifts weights like a bitch at the gym. The truth? Unlikely they stand a chance.
But yes. You need a modicum of strength at least. Then speed is really important + endurance. Then it's all in the mind. Any style can do it if you train it properly.
I was taught to get in close and force my thumb all the way into the eye socket. There are weapons all over the place. Never go for the genitals. Men reflexively protect that area.
It really doesn't matter tbh. Style is nonsense. Strength is more important than people would like to believe in reality. Sure, people would like to think they can stand up against a 200 pound mugged faced unshaved rapist who lifts weights like a bitch at the gym. The truth? Unlikely they stand a chance.
True. I remember trying out holds on a friend who was a very decent swimmer and not much heavier than I was, only about 15 kg. Except for a few specific choke holds I couldn't manage much against him. Arm holds were totally useless as his upper body strength was simply too much. I was going up for a black belt in Judo at the time and he wasn't trained in any martial arts.
Aikido was totally useless.
EDIT: Aikido was useless from an effectiveness point of view. It greatly increased my balance and timing though, which made me more effective in the other martial arts I did.
I was taught to get in close and force my thumb all the way into the eye socket. There are weapons all over the place. Never go for the genitals. Men reflexively protect that area.
If you control someone's head, you control his movement. A thumb in the eye is a good start but is easily wrested away from. You're better off putting a thumb in an eye and then using the other hand to maintain the grip by locking the back of the head and then move him to the ground (by directing the head down). And then run.
It's true also that you should never go for genitals in the first instance. After you've poked his eye though, it's probably a good idea. Also because any movement towards his crotch by then can't be seen because your arm is in the way and you're too close so there's no reflexes kicking in. And then run.
You need a modicum of strength at least. Then speed is really important + endurance. Then it's all in the mind. Any style can do it if you train it properly.
I am small, so I need to utilise what I have that would be put me at a tactical advantage and people underestimate the intelligence of knowing how to prevent violence from ever occurring in the first place, to deceive by greater ingenuity. Learning to fight is essential in that it helps you overcome your fear of violence - hence get your daughter to learn Krav Maga because it is real fighting - but tactically speaking it is irrelevant when it comes to encountering someone stronger than you. That is why I am a runner.
Why in God's creation would a guardian over a female child cover up that the child had been raped?
I'm sorry Tiff, but I find that question offensive. It comes across as a rhetorical denial that it ever happens. but it has happened and it does happen.
When she was a scrawny 11-year-old, Sherry Johnson found out one day that she was about to be married to a 20-year-old member of her church who had raped her.
“It was forced on me,” she recalls. She had become pregnant, she says, and child welfare authorities were investigating — so her family and church officials decided the simplest way to avoid a messy criminal case was to organize a wedding.
“My mom asked me if I wanted to get married, and I said, ‘I don’t know, what is marriage, how do I act like a wife?’” Johnson remembers today, many years later. “She said, ‘Well, I guess you’re just going to get married.’”
So she was. A government clerk in Tampa, Fla., refused to marry an 11-year-old, even though this was legal in the state, so the wedding party went to nearby Pinellas County, where the clerk issued a marriage license. The license (which I’ve examined) lists her birth date, so officials were aware of her age.
There's the answer in this case; "to avoid a messy criminal case", the scandal, in other words. But it's the wrong question, 'why would anyone', when for whatever reason they do. The right question is 'why does the law sanction it, and why do people defend the law, and even begin to excuse it?'
My sick joke earlier was that if if this was a story about Muslims, the moral outrage would be unequivocal, and we would understand that they do it because bad religion has made them bad people, with bad laws.
My sick joke earlier was that if if this was a story about Muslims, the moral outrage would be unequivocal, and we would understand that they do it because bad religion has made them bad people, with bad laws.
And that is the case here too. :(
Sure. One ought avoid being self-righteous. As it happens, condemning a crime doesn't require that one assume divine purity of soul.
There are people in Saudi now whose human rights are being violated. It is unutterably vile to suggest that we ignore that fact because evil actions are taking place in Florida.
Above we see the tactics of the left in a nutshell. Pretend like one anecdote evens the scales on a horrific practice like child marriage among population groups, so as to ignore the population group statistically more likely to engage in it.
Reply to Thorongil I don't see leftism as having anything to do with it. People sometimes feel puny and will resort to straight bullshit to volley a moral mud bomb at somebody else. It makes them feel a little better about themselves.
Above we see the tactics of the left in a nutshell. Pretend like one anecdote evens the scales on a horrific practice like child marriage among population groups, so as to ignore the population group statistically more likely to engage in it.
I don't even know what you're attacking here. We're just talking about a terrible Florida law (and then by extension similar laws in other states).
And I'm curious, what population group is statistically more likely to engage in child marriage?
Above we see the tactics of the left in a nutshell. Pretend like one anecdote evens the scales on a horrific practice like child marriage among population groups, so as to ignore the population group statistically more likely to engage in it.
Undoubtedly there is a lot of shit happening, but the left uses their fake morality to push political agendas of tighter control based on isolated incidents.
I was taught to get in close and force my thumb all the way into the eye socket. There are weapons all over the place. Never go for the genitals. Men reflexively protect that area.
Having a fixed strategy is better than nothing, but it can also be bad. Someone who is somewhat experienced with street fighting will usually discern what you're trying to do from subtle cues - how you're holding your fists, where you're looking, how you're breathing, etc. If they discern your strategy it's not going to work. So there's no "get in close" - either you are there already and surprise them, or otherwise it will be hard.
Also remember this. One solid punch in the chin from someone much stronger than you is all that will take to bring you down. Even if you managed to gouge their eye out, you'll be concomitantly hit by a punch (that's the reflex - dodge / tilt head / shift + hit).
Reply to Benkei
Yeah, I've trained in TKD, Wing Chun, Aikido (from the Far Eastern) and boxing (from Western). All of them have something useful to teach, but real fighting is different.
You're better off putting a thumb in an eye and then using the other hand to maintain the grip by locking the back of the head and then move him to the ground (by directing the head down).
Okay but that's supposing anyone will stay put or let you grapple them. Your biggest concern is to avoid getting hit first. If it's someone stronger than you, one well placed hit to the face will be enough to completely throw you off-guard, your mind will go in a frenzy, and you won't control the situation anymore.
Above we see the tactics of the left in a nutshell. Pretend like one anecdote evens the scales on a horrific practice like child marriage among population groups, so as to ignore the population group statistically more likely to engage in it.
Which comment(s) are you referring to?
Did you read the NY article I linked to that started this discussion?
Reply to Mongrel Then why do I only see the left doing it? If you point out that, compared to places like the US, child marriage is much more socially accepted and practiced in the Muslim world and among Muslim immigrant communities in the West, they will immediately bring up some anecdote like the one above. Likewise, if you point out that most terrorist attacks in the world are perpetrated by Muslims, they will never fail to bring up some Christian abortion clinic bomber. It's like a nervous tic with them.
I don't even know what you're attacking here. We're just talking about a terrible Florida law.
That's not what unenlightened is doing. He just admitted to bringing up a child marriage case in Florida solely in order to impugn those he perceives as unduly focusing on Muslims who practice it.
Then why do I only see the left doing it? If you point out that, compared to places like the US, child marriage is much more socially accepted and practiced in the Muslim world and among Muslim immigrant communities in the West, they will immediately bring up some anecdote like the one above. Likewise, if you point out that most terrorist attacks in the world are perpetrated by Muslims, they will never fail to bring up some Christian abortion clinic bomber. It's like a nervous tic with them.
It's a knee-jerk reaction in opposition to perceived racism. Don't you know that?
That's not what unenlightened is doing. He just admitted to bringing up a child marriage case in Florida solely in order to impugn those he perceives as unduly focusing on Muslims who practice it.
I guess you haven't noticed the fact that you're attacking him solely in order to impugn the left i.e. to make a partisan political point. It's like a nervous tic with you.
I guess you haven't noticed the fact that you're attacking him solely in order to impugn the left i.e. to make a partisan political point. It's like a nervous tic with you.
No, I was correcting his impression about those who focus on Muslim child marriages.
If you point out that, compared to places like the US, child marriage is much more socially accepted and practiced in the Muslim world and among Muslim immigrant communities in the West, they will immediately bring up some anecdote like the one above. Likewise, if you point out that most terrorist attacks in the world are perpetrated by Muslims, they will never fail to bring up some Christian abortion clinic bomber. It's like a nervous tic with them.
Well, according to this, 84% of the 12 million child marriages in India were Hindu, with 11% Muslim. And according to this, 80% of Indians are Hindu and 14% Muslim. So Hindus have a disproportionate number of child marriages in India.
My primary interest in this conversation is to learn more about the child marriage situation in Florida. That's not going to happen if it becomes a left-right thing. And it absolutely shouldn't be. Of all the things we should be able to agree on...
As I said.. it's nothing to do with the principles of leftism. It's a psychological issue.
Many leftists are not fans of Western civilization. They would prefer to destroy it and replace it with something else (usually some flavor of Marxist utopia). Many Muslims don't like the West either, hence, they form an alliance of convenience, so I don't think it's merely psychological.
Many leftists are not fans of Western civilization. They would prefer to destroy it and replace it with something else (usually some flavor of Marxist utopia). Many Muslims don't like the West either, hence, they form an alliance of convenience, so I don't think it's merely psychological.
Alliance of convenience? How old were you when 911 happened?
I'm sure he'll appreciate the vote of confidence. I would like to spread my wings a bit further though. The only thing I'm not interested in listening to is a segue-way into partisanship. But, hey, people will do what they will do.
And it absolutely shouldn't be. Of all the things, we should be able to agree on...
What a laugh. Your pal unenlightened has already admitted that he's not interested in merely "learning more about the child marriage situation in Florida." He used it to make false allegations about those who are concerned about child marriage among Muslims. He was the one who suggested that those who are thus concerned think it less morally outrageous than when Christians practice it. I called him out for making such an underhanded smear, and now you're condemning me and not him. Amazing, Baden. Truly amazing.
If you say so. Although the Jesus rape thing has somewhat coloured my perception of your judgement.
Sunnis believe the Prophet had sex with a nine year old girl. This locks them in religiously speaking to a certain perspective on what an American would call child molestation. (Please don't lecture me about how Sunnis can alter this situation. They can't.)
The challenges Sunni Islam faces are different from those faced by the US society. Scientology's violation of child labor laws has been tested in the courts and was validated.
I believe that at least part of the problem is a little scar the US culture bears called: "what happened to the Branch Davidians?"
Sunnis believe the Prophet had sex with a nine year old girl. This locks them in religiously speaking to a certain perspective on what an American would call child molestation. (Please don't lecture me about how Sunnis can alter this situation. They can't.)
You've phrased that in an odd way. What does it mean in practice to be religiously locked into a certain perspective? Lot had sex with his daughters. Moses ordered rape. What does that lock the Christian into? I'm no fan of Islam and Saudi Arabia is a hellhole as far as I'm concerned, but you'll have to make the distinction clearer as I don't think you would suggest that a Sunni Muslim must be in favour of child rape, right?
Hey, look at that, Baden's still an unfunny hypocrite.
You have a tendency to take things personally and respond on that basis. Our arguments here are really not important enough to merit that. But, yes, everyone's a hypocrite to some degree. And the more you call me unfunny, the more you convince me I must be some kind of comic genius.
Our arguments here are really not important enough to merit that.
My arguments, if deemed "partisan" or "political" by you, are called out and castigated as such. If someone on your side instigates them or does the same thing, not so much. There are some things one can become less hypocritical about, and this is one of them.
I'm female, so rape is expected prior to being killed and dumped. Don't teach your daughter that she's helpless.
Yes, but probably being incapacitated is expected prior to being raped. The most important thing is to avoid such situations in the first place - that's how you protect yourself. Even though I know how to fight I won't get myself into trouble on purpose, and I'll avoid troublesome areas of the city if I can. Remember what Sun Tzu said - the best win without a fight.
I don't have a daughter at the moment, but if I did, I wouldn't teach her she's helpless, but neither would I tell her "Yeah, no worries, you can easily beat the hell out of a 200 pound rapist". That would give her a false sense of security. Fear has its role in protecting us too, so it's important to know when you should fear and when you shouldn't.
Just reading Orwell about being locked in perspective:
"For some months I lived entirely in coal-miners’ houses. I ate my meals with the family, I washed at the kitchen sink, I shared bedrooms with miners, drank beer with them, played darts with them, talked to them by the hour together... I... was not one of them, and they knew it even better than I did. However much you like them, however interesting you find their conversation, there is always that accursed itch of class-difference, like the pea under the princess’s mattress. It is not a question of dislike or distaste, only of difference, but it is enough to make real intimacy impossible."
I called you out for being hypocritical, which you were, and for turning this into an explicit left vs right issue, which you did. Un wasn't and didn't. But in general, I do have more sympathy with un's worldview so it's likely that I would call him out less than you. You criticizing me for that tendency is another instance of hypocrisy on your part. But again, it's not all that serious.
My primary interest in this conversation is to learn more about the child marriage situation in Florida. That's not going to happen if it becomes a left-right thing. And it absolutely shouldn't be. Of all the things we should be able to agree on...
Right, time to ban unenlightened for sliding the conversation down the wrong road with his underhanded attack on discrimination against Muslims.
What a laugh. Your pal unenlightened has already admitted that he's not interested in merely "learning more about the child marriage situation in Florida." He used it to make false allegations about those who are concerned about child marriage among Muslims. He was the one who suggested that those who are thus concerned think it less morally outrageous than when Christians practice it. I called him out for making such an underhanded smear, and now you're condemning me and not him. Amazing, Baden. Truly amazing.
Yes, but are you a moderator?!
Baden seems to like attempting to bully the right with underhanded tactics, and then state that it's not his fault. The same tactic he used against Emptyheady.
Looks like somebody forgot to watch the "How not to be a whiny little bitch" video. ;) Seriously though, you do cheer me up with these constant references to Emptyheady. (Y)
Most of the bickering here, I think, stems from left-leaning hard atheists who don't want to give one religion higher credence over another, which results in posts like Unenlightened's which scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to discredit Christianity in the least constructive way possible by essentially arguing, "look, Islam isn't the only one that practices child marriage, hurp derp!"
I really do find it bizarre that anyone here should be at all surprised when the right-leaning theists, agnostics, ignostics, or soft-atheists take offense to this sort of crap.
There are people in Saudi now whose human rights are being violated. It is unutterably vile to suggest that we ignore that fact because evil actions are taking place in Florida.
Oh I agree, and there is plenty to criticise going down here in the UK too.
My primary interest in this conversation is to learn more about the child marriage situation in Florida. That's not going to happen if it becomes a left-right thing. And it absolutely shouldn't be. Of all the things we should be able to agree on...
But sexual politics is a left-right thing and always has been.
He used it to make false allegations about those who are concerned about child marriage among Muslims. He was the one who suggested that those who are thus concerned think it less morally outrageous than when Christians practice it.
tom
1k
So how you do we should change the Muslims?
— WiseMoron
Muslims are permitted to rape in Europe. Famously one was let off raping a 10yr old boy in Austria. One was spared jail in UK because his plea of ignorance of the law regarding rape of a 13 year old girl was upheld. That particular rapist was born and raised in UK.
Start by holding them to the same standards as everyone else.
e.g. there are esimated 1000s of married Muslim children in Europe. Jail the rapists and put the children in care.
Reply to Heister EggcartUnenlightened is known to be a very sly figure already, given his history. It's not unknown for him to use underhanded tactics and manipulation to drive whatever agenda he has.
I called you out for being hypocritical, which you were
Sure, keep peddling this tu quoque. You say I'm hypocritical because you think I was intentionally trying to be partisan in response to his partisan bait, but you have not established this in the slightest. But do notice that, even if true, you admit that he presented a partisan bait, which you didn't reprimand him for. Hence, you are the hypocrite.
Moreover, I don't know why you keep responding in light of my "not being worth responding to." I'm not sure one could be more hypocritical than you are right now.
Unenlightened is known to be a very sly figure already, given his history. It's not unknown for him to use underhanded tactics and manipulation to drive whatever agenda he has.
Even George W. Bush knows this:
I'm surprised and deeply honoured that the former president knows anything at all about me.
Reply to unenlightened Tom appears to have presented facts, ones born out by statistics in addition to the instances he mentions. They are lamentable, but facts nonetheless. Your response was not to dispute them but to make a "sick joke" by pointing out an instance of child rape and marriage perpetrated by Christians. Why do that? Who's really the morally serious one here? The person who is concerned about the alarming and disproportionately high number of child marriages in Muslim communities, and the double standards often applied to them by the authorities out of fear of being called "racist" or "Islamophobic" by people like you, or someone who makes sick jokes about rape for no other apparent reason than to stick it to Christians and to uncharitably insinuate that Tom somehow believes that child marriage among Christians is less morally wrong than child marriage among Muslims?
Most of the bickering here, I think, stems from left-leaning hard atheists who don't want to give one religion higher credence over another, which results in posts like Unenlightened's which scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to discredit Christianity in the least constructive way possible by essentially arguing, "look, Islam isn't the only one that practices child marriage, hurp derp!"
I really do find it bizarre that anyone here should be at all surprised when the right-leaning theists, agnostics, ignostics, or soft-atheists take offense to this sort of crap.
Precisely!
Here we see, @Mongrel, yet another treasured leftist principle at work, namely, the idol of equality. All religions must be equally bad, and if they're not, we'll just have to make them be!
Reply to Thorongil You didn't answer my other question, whether you had read the article I linked. So I'm assuming you haven't, otherwise I don't understand why you're singling out Unenlightened's comment.
Unen's comment about Muslims was in reply to the entire article, which contains the Florida example he later quoted but is about a much broader issue in the US. In several states women (and even young girls) campaigned against the possibility of child marriage under US law and were summarily dismissed by politicians. The only thing Unen highlighted was the hypocrisy where we can be pretty certain that if it was a story about Muslims it would be quickly condemned but now that it was the US, all of a sudden child marriage is acceptable to a majority of legislators.
Some stuff from the article:
[quote=David Bates]“We’re asking the Legislature to repeal a law that’s been on the books for over a century, that’s been working without difficulty, on the basis of a request from a minor doing a Girl Scout project,”[/quote]
Working without difficulty, meaning 13 year old girls can be married off. Seems off putting to me.
New Jersey was set to raise it to 18 years but this was blocked by Chris Christie because it would violate the religious traditions of certain communities, requesting exemptions. So yeah, religious freedom trumps physical integrity if you're a girl.
Here we see, Mongrel, yet another treasured leftist principle at work, namely, the idol of equality. All religions must be equally bad, and if they're not, we'll just have to make them be!
I was thinking exactly the same thing. There's a normative approach at work: the rule is that all peoples have to be exactly the same and therefore I can understand Muslims by looking in the mirror.
I'll admit to being fearful of intolerance as if it's a slope we're all about to slip down. Maybe because I'm 25% German and therefore 25% antisemitic. I'm confident that 25% of the world's Jews are total assholes. My experience backs that up.
Then I really can't help you. I've been as clear as I can about what I object to in his comment.
My point was that you're not interpreting what he said correctly. Read the article and read his comment again. Charitably this time.
Or be angry and disagreeable.
In any case, from where I'm standing all religion is equally bad because they're all false. Excuses to acquire divine dispensation for atrocities big and small. Whether it is filling the heads of children with the same lies, perpetuating it ad infinitum, crusades, child marriage, destroying art, rape and war, it's all ugly and regressive.
Quite frankly, it's an affront to philosophy that there's still a philosophy of religion.
My point was that you're not interpreting what he said correctly. Read the article and read his comment again. Charitably this time.
Well, as a matter of fact, you're wrong. He admitted he had in mind posts by @tom, not necessarily the article you linked. So how about you go and read his comment again, dearest Dutchman.
In any case, from where I'm standing all religion is equally bad because they're all false. Excuses to acquire divine dispensation for atrocities big and small. Whether it is filling the heads of children with the same lies, perpetuating it ad infinitum, crusades, child marriage, destroying art, rape and war, it's all ugly and regressive.
Yeah, it makes no difference whether one lives among Quakers in the American Northeast or among Muslims in Taliban controlled parts of Afghanistan. Tomato, tomahto. They're all the same.
That smells of intolerance to me. Why are you so certain that religion is all false?
Yes, I'm intolerant to religious bullshit.
I know it because no argument for the existence of God holds water. I know it because no religious system is logically consistent. I know it because no religious system propagates just outcomes. And yes, I'm the final arbiter on what is just, not God (or unicorns for that matter).
Yeah, it makes no difference whether one lives among Quakers in the American Northeast or among Muslims in Taliban controlled parts of Afghanistan. Tomato, tomahto. They're all the same.
What's your point? Because Muslims are worse (in your view) the rest isn't wrong? You know that's a fallacy right?
I know it because no argument for the existence of God holds water.
In your opinion, and according to your judgement this may be true. But there are many intelligent people who would disagree with you. This alone should
If I thought I was an expert, I wouldn't have asked you the questions I did, would I? I am actually interested if you'd care to answer.
Oh. The Prophet is viewed as a model of proper behavior by Sunnis, so there's a problem with condemning intercourse with a nine year old girl. A law against statutory rape, to the extent that it's a law against the very thing the Prophet did (according to sources considered highly reliable), can't be viewed as necessarily outlawing something that's immoral.
Suppose a bunch of assholes move to make it legal to molest children. The vast majority of Christian clergy-people would have no problem speaking out against this. This is significant because this is what clergy people are supposed to do. They're supposed to reach out and jerk a knot in the population when it starts to screw up.
A Sunni clergyman couldn't join them unconditionally. It's not like they don't know that this is a problem. They do. They just have bigger problems to deal with right now. The reason they don't have flexibility to condemn the Prophet's behavior is because Islam didn't have anybody like Augustine to inject the notion of taking scripture symbolically. Islam grew and evolved with some freedom until about the 10th Century when it sort of froze over. The idea was that to allow further flexibility would be to deny that Islam was complete as it was.
That not all religions engage, if at all, in "crusades, child marriage, destroying art, rape, and war" to the same degree. You can think they're all equally false, in that their main tenets are false, but that doesn't mean they're all equally "bad" in the ways just listed. That is to equivocate with the term "bad."
In your opinion, and according to your judgement this may be true. But there are many intelligent people who would disagree with you. This alone should
Obviously not intelligent enough. And that's not just my opinion that's the conclusion of too many centuries of philosophy of religion.
Okay, then I'm the final arbiter too. Let's see where that is going to get us.
I'm glad you take responsibility for your own opinions as you should. You also realise this isn't possible when you're religious right? You'll end up doing things religion proscribes not because you think you ought to do it but because you think you ought to do it because it is demanded. And there enters the worst aspect of every religion, in that it absolves its practitioners from moral responsibility as long as there's some religious rule they can hide behind.
How come some of the brightest minds, including Isaac Newton, St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal, etc. disagreed with you on this point?
How come some of the brightest minds disagreed with them? For someone who constantly reiterates how important it is to think for yourself, it strikes me as odd to introduce this cherry-picked appeal to authority. Suffice is to say there's development in thought and reasoning as well that doesn't allow today's thinkers the same ignorance of people living in the 16th century (or before).
Tom appears to have presented facts, ones born out by statistics in addition to the instances he mentions. They are lamentable, but facts nonetheless.
I am horrified by the fact that child marriage is legal and happens in the US. I didn't know that until Benkei put up his link. I confess to being more horrified by it happening in my country's special best ally than in places that are clearly poorly governed in all sorts of ways. I probably shouldn't be, but things closer to me hit harder.
So my response was more emotional than closely argued - as suits the shout box. Now can you explain why these facts about the US and my rather loose comments have provoked such a defensive and overtly political reaction on your part. Are you not horrified too, by child marriage to cover up rape, or are you too busy being horrified by my loose talk?
That not all religions engage, if at all, in "crusades, child marriage, destroying art, rape, and war" to the same degree. You can think they're all equally false, in that their main tenets are false, but that doesn't mean they're all equally "bad" in the ways just listed. That is to equivocate with the term "bad."
I never said that; I said it is all equally bad because they're all false. Period. Then I listed a series of things various practioners of different religions at some point in time or currently are guilty of.
The reason they don't have flexibility to condemn the Prophet's behavior is because Islam didn't have anybody like Augustine to inject the notion of taking scripture symbolically.
That's very debatable. The Sufis had such an approach, but they gradually lost influence, so it would be more correct to say that Islam's Augustines were snuffed out than that they didn't exist at all.
You'll end up doing things religion proscribes not because you think you ought to do it but because you think you ought to do it because it is demanded. And there enters the worst aspect of every religion, in that it absolves its practitioners from moral responsibility as long as there's some religious rule they can hide behind.
But that's false. I've arrived at my morality independent of religion. In fact, one of the reasons I came back to religion was precisely because what I discovered to be true morality coincided perfectly with that of religion.
How come some of the brightest minds disagreed with them? For someone who constantly reiterates how important it is to think for yourself, it strikes me as odd to introduce this cherry-picked appeal to authority. Suffice is to say there's development in thought and reasoning as well that doesn't allow today's thinkers the same ignorance of people living in the 16th century (or before).
The point I was trying to make isn't that you're wrong. It's merely that you can't assert the certainty that you wish to assert, because clearly the matters aren't as settled as you'd like them to be.
I never said that; I said it is all equally bad because they're all false. Period. Then I listed a series of things various practioners of different religions at some point in time or currently are guilty of.
Yes you did. Stop being a bonehead. You said they were bad because they're false and then listed bad things religious people have done purportedly in the name of their religion. I then said: "not all religions engage, if at all, in 'crusades, child marriage, destroying art, rape, and war' to the same degree." Do you agree or disagree?
Are you not horrified too, by child marriage to cover up rape, or are you too busy being horrified by my loose talk?
Nope, if I spent every single day being horrified about all the shit and evil going on in the world I'd be a depressed and hopeless man. Enough of this crap "ohhh I'm so horrified!!" bla bla. Quit this virtue signalling and bullshit. Yes it's a terrible thing, but no, I'm absolutely not horrified by it. Shit happens in the world. What's the point of being horrified about something I can't do anything about? I expect bad things to happen in this world, so I don't go around being horrified by it. I see if I can do my little something to improve things, and that's it.
Yes you did. Stop being a bonehead. You said they were bad because they're false and then listed bad things religious people have done purportedly in the name of their religion. I then said: "not all religions engage, if at all, in 'crusades, child marriage, destroying art, rape, and war' to the same degree." Do you agree or disagree?
No I didn't. You can read can't you? And thanks for the ad hom. Really mature.
I suspected you interpreted it incorrectly, which is why I followed up with a question to clarify your meaning (it's called active listening, you should try it). I then established you did interpret it incorrectly and then you persist in attributing a meaning I'm completely clear about I didn't want to convey. What's that? A straw man? Ah yes...
Are you not horrified too, by child marriage to cover up rape, or are you too busy being horrified by my loose talk?
And right on cue, we have the uncharitable insinuation that I somehow believe that child marriage among Christians is less morally wrong than child marriage among Muslims. Why ask me such a ridiculous question unless you suspect I will answer in the negative (or affirmative in my wording)? You might as well have asked me whether I am horrified by murder, torture, or any other evil deed. That you feel compelled to ask such a question proves your own extreme prejudice.
But that's false. I've arrived at my morality independent of religion. In fact, one of the reasons I came back to religion was precisely because what I discovered to be true morality coincided perfectly with that of religion.
Well. Considering your excitingly inconsistent views in some areas and total lack of being horrified about child marriages covering up rape in the US it can't be a Christian religion, unless of course you're a literalist in which case to be consistent you should argue for a legal age of marriage of three years and one day, except that doesn't square with you classifying it as "shit and evil".
That's very debatable. The Sufis had such an approach, but they gradually lost influence, so it would be more correct to say that Islam's Augustines were snuffed out than that they didn't exist at all.
I'm not in a position to debate that, but I don't think Sufis were ever really comparable to Augustine.
I suspected you interpreted it incorrectly, which is why I followed up with a question to clarify your meaning (it's called active listening, you should try it). I then established you did interpret it incorrectly and then you persist in attributing a meaning I'm completely clear about I didn't want to convey. What's that? A straw man? Ah yes...
So you admit that not all religious people behave in the same way?
Considering your excitingly inconsistent views in some areas and total lack of being horrified about child marriages covering up rape in the US it can't be a Christian religio
So what if you're horrified? Children stop getting raped because you're horrified, or what's the deal? :s Being horrified is useless. Doing something about it - that certainly is a lot more useful.
And right on cue, we have the uncharitable insinuation that I somehow believe that child marriage among Christians is less morally wrong than child marriage among Muslims. Why ask me such a ridiculous question unless you suspect I will answer in the negative (or affirmative in my wording)? You might as well have asked me whether I am horrified by murder, torture, or any other evil deed. That you feel compelled to ask such a question proves your own extreme prejudice.
Now that is a neat move, considering my own objection to Tiff's question. But your fulminating is what makes it a serious question. And of course I did also answer Tiff's question with a quote from the article. Whereas it appears to be beneath your dignity to put my paranoid suspicions to rest. But you can reconfirm your horror at what I say, and that rather supports my paranoid speculations as to your attitudes to these issues. I am rather uncharitable, I suspect your motives.
In fact, I'd expect wherever there are poor, uneducated people, you're going to find all sorts of abuses, not the least of which are child brides. The Roma get married very very young as do the Irish Travelers. Sometimes poor and uneducated people have primitive religious beliefs, irrational superstitions, and all sorts of backwards customs.
Does this mean we're all the same, yet we hypocritically condemn others who do just as we do. No, not at all. In the US and in the Netherlands child marriage is a condemned aberration, which is not the case everywhere.
Reply to unenlightened One favorite tactic of the left is to make people morally horrified about issues. This is a means of controlling you, and trying to force you to be subservient to whoever is seen as the moral person. By making you feel guilty, the left achieves the purpose of quieting you.
Resist.
And realise the tactic. Being horrified changes nothing. The only thing it does is make you weak, and unable to do anything. Wonder why some desire to do that to you.
Most of the bickering here, I think, stems from left-leaning hard atheists who don't want to give one religion higher credence over another, which results in posts like Unenlightened's which scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to discredit Christianity in the least constructive way possible by essentially arguing, "look, Islam isn't the only one that practices child marriage, hurp derp!"
I really do find it bizarre that anyone here should be at all surprised when the right-leaning theists, agnostics, ignostics, or soft-atheists take offense to this sort of crap.
I don't think Un was trying to discredit Christianity. He was trying to propel a snot ball at the United States. His take is that all Americans are exactly the same and they're all involved in decisions about the use of the military. Unanimously, they agree that Islam should be punished for some immoral action or other and therefore do odd things like drone strikes and what not.
He was trying to draw attention to the fact that Florida should be drone struck.
BTW.. upon reflection, I think Florida's law was probably meant to protect pregnant young women from the stigma of being unwed mothers. Back in the day, that status could be devastating because the the assumption would be: whore.
Being horrified changes nothing. The only thing it does is make you weak, and unable to do anything. Wonder why some desire to do that to you.
My conspiracy theory is that they want me to go to war and reduce the population, so hey want me to be horrified about 'them'. And all this horror on my part is a resistance to that. It is a redirection of horror away from the 'other' and towards a more reflective horror at what 'we' do. I am weak, and that is your horror - but weakness will triumph in the end.
all [religions are] equally bad because they're all false.
I don't think the falsehood of a certain claim corresponds with its moral worth. For example, it's untrue that today is December 15th, 1746, but is this claim in itself "equally bad" as someone who claims it's December 16th, 1747? I think the moral lack rests in the individual making the claim, not the claim in itself.
To put this another way, and in the context of the last handful of posts, I'd say that one must first establish a proper template from which we can judge the falsity of each particular religion, based upon its doctrines and collection of claims. Only then can we go about figuring out whether or not every religion is equally false. Even so, how does it follow that idea X in religion Y is equally immoral as idea Y in religion X? The falsity of a religion's claims are either believed or not believed. Only the actions therefrom can be judged as being moral or immoral, as I see it.
I mean, if I'm just being totally frank here, it strikes me as being absolutely mental for someone to suggest, first, that Aztec Animism, for example, is as false as Western Christianity in its teaching, and second, that Aztec Animism is as equally immoral, somehow, as Western Christianity is based solely upon the supposed fact that each religion is equally false. I don't see how you've woven falsehood with morality, so perhaps you could enlighten me.
I don't think Un was trying to discredit Christianity. He was trying to propel a snot ball at the United States. His take is that all Americans are exactly the same and they're all involved in decisions about the use of the military. Unanimously, they agree that Islam should be punished for some immoral action or other and therefore do odd things like drone strikes and what not.
He was trying to draw attention to the fact that Florida should be drone struck.
BTW.. upon reflection, I think Florida's law was probably meant to protect pregnant young women from the stigma of being unwed mothers. Back in the day, that status could be devastating because the the assumption would be: whore.
Is that a Christianity thing? Somewhat, yes.
Perhaps. Or to keep women from having abortions. I guess it was more prudent to set up a marriage between the rapist and her victim over letting the victim have an abortion?
Reply to Michael Most countries allow children to marry, even the UK. Why don't you go buy yourself a Google and look this up for yourself? https://www.google.com/amp/amp.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/these-are-the-countries-where-child-marriage-is-legal
In fact, one of the reasons I came back to religion was precisely because what I discovered to be true morality coincided perfectly with that of religion.
I'm not criticizing your religious beliefs, but it is a rather striking coincidence that even among those who insist they independently arrived at their religious beliefs, they hold to the same beliefs as their parents. In fact, there's no better way to predict someone's beliefs than to simply ask what beliefs their family held.
Just accept the fact that your faith was chosen more to conform to your familial norms than anything else. Why lie to yourself?
Perhaps. Or to keep women from having abortions. I guess it was more prudent to set up a marriage between the rapist and her victim over letting the victim have an abortion?
Yes. Plus infant mortality was pretty high. The baby wouldn't have to go straight to hell upon birth (failed birth, that is) if the parents were married.
I'm not criticizing your religious beliefs, but it is a rather striking coincidence that even among those who insist they independently arrived at their religious beliefs, they hold to the same beliefs as their parents. In fact, there's no better way to predict someone's beliefs than to simply ask what beliefs their family held.
Just accept the fact that your faith was chosen more to conform to your familial norms than anything else. Why lie to yourself?
Nope. My parents are like you pretty much, especially with regards to, for example, sexual morality. My father is an atheist who likes to dabble in things like New Age (Osho, etc.). My mother is a Christian, but not very devout. The rest of my family - uncles, cousins, etc. are irreligious atheists for the most part.
So I'm definitely not like my family. I simply couldn't have been, because the things they've been advising me to do as a kid simply weren't the things I uphold now. So I really haven't arrived at this morality because of my family or what I've been taught. Quite the contrary.
What I've been taught at home is like this:
• Evil people always get ahead.
• Men are supposed to chase after girls - the more girls a man gets, the better he is
• Priests (and the Church) are corrupt and not to be trusted
etc.
But you can reconfirm your horror at what I say, and that rather supports my paranoid speculations as to your attitudes to these issues. I am rather uncharitable, I suspect your motives.
Right, so why would you believe what I said, hmm?
Yes, child marriage is immoral no matter who's perpetrating it. There could not have been any other answer based on my comments, but as you say, you're an uncharitable paranoid.
To put this another way, and in the context of the last handful of posts, I'd say that one must first establish a proper template from which we can judge the falsity of each particular religion, based upon its doctrines and collection of claims. Only then can we go about figuring out whether or not every religion is equally false. Even so, how does it follow that idea X in religion Y is equally immoral as idea Y in religion X? The falsity of a religion's claims are either believed or not believed. Only the actions therefrom can be judged as being moral or immoral, as I see it.
I mean, if I'm just being totally frank here, it strikes me as being absolutely mental for someone to suggest, first, that Aztec Animism, for example, is as false as Western Christianity in its teaching, and second, that Aztec Animism is as equally immoral, somehow, as Western Christianity is based solely upon the supposed fact that each religion is equally false. I don't see how you've woven falsehood with morality, so perhaps you could enlighten me.
If you ascribe to a utilitarian type of ethics the above makes some sense.
But let's say we have a mathematical problem and 20 students give 20 different solutions but they're all false then what point to say one of them was closer than they other? Hence, they're all equally bad.
Now, I can agree that some people are worse than others based on a particular reference frame but history teaches us that's all rather temporal. From where I'm standing issues like Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo and torture are quite equivalent to Islamic terrorism. Not Christian you say? US torture was forwarded under a president who considered he was called by God to do His bidding on earth. And of course the same argument will be forwarded by adherents of any religion; it's not really Jewish to discriminate and marginalise non-Jewish Israelis, terrorism isn't really Islamic, etc.
The problem with any set of rules that alleviates the burden of personal moral responsibility sets up a system inviting abuse by offering (divine) dispensation. Patriotism and nationalism, for instance, suffer from the same problem. The extent of such abuse (or absence thereof) is driven by historic and social context.
In that sense I'm baffled that St Augustine's work is then forwarded as something Islam needs by Mongrel. That's the same person who changed a peaceful religion into one of violence, by allowing kings and emperors to give dispensation for the prohibition on violence - even if such a person's reasons to go to war are unjust. Great improvement!
How very convenient too that there's always someone doing the deciding but someone else is doing the dying.
So I'm definitely not like my family. I simply couldn't have been, because the things they've been advising me to do as a kid simply weren't the things I uphold now. So I really haven't arrived at this morality because of my family or what I've been taught. Quite the contrary.
That was long ago. When I hit puberty that's when I actually conformed to the beliefs of my parents
You're doing everything backward man, you need to get with the program!
I was raised a Catholic by the way.
There's actually a fun read of Genesis as a simile for the development of kids into adulthood. How they are first innocent and then grow up, ashamed of their bodies and down the slippery slope they go. How's that for an Augustinian symbolic interpretation?
That snake from genesis was obviously phallic and represented male sexual desires. You'll be happy to know God cursed it in keeping with your sexual mores.
There's actually a fun read of Genesis as a simile for the development of kids into adulthood. How they are first innocent and then grow up, ashamed of their bodies and down the slippery slope they go. How's that for an Augustinian symbolic interpretation?
Well I'm totally not ashamed of my body (if that's what you're suggesting), but I've just seen the harm immorality causes and want none of it.
That snake from genesis was obviously phallic and represented make sexual desires. You'll be happy to know God cursed it in keeping with your sexual mores.
But let's say we have a mathematical problem and 20 students give 20 different solutions but they're all false then what point to say one of them was closer than they other? Hence, they're all equally bad.
In my schooling I would often get half credit on math questions that I'd answer almost correctly, getting more right than other kids. So, no, my answer isn't equally as wrong as the other kid who just wrote a penis on his paper or something. Both wrong, but not both equally wrong.
Now, I can agree that some people are worse than others based on a particular reference frame but history teaches us that's all rather temporal. From where I'm standing issues like Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo and torture are quite equivalent to Islamic terrorism. Not Christian you say? US torture was forwarded under a president who considered he was called by God to do His bidding on earth. And of course the same argument will be forwarded by adherents of any religion; it's not really Jewish to discriminate and marginalise non-Jewish Israelis, terrorism isn't really Islamic, etc.
You're condemning people here, not the religion. Murder is murder is murder, same with rape, arson, what have you. If I label myself a Satanist and go out and chuck buckets of goat feces on people's heads out in the town square, does that mean my Satanism is somehow false and morally reprehensible merely because I am a professed Satanist, or is my action to blame? Again, the wedge I'm driving is between a person's actions and the religion they separately "follow." The child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church shouldn't be used as an indictment on the religion's theology, but rather on the people who did and do these things, and on the institutional failings within the church hierarchy.
The problem with any set of rules that alleviates the burden of personal moral responsibility sets up a system inviting abuse by offering (divine) dispensation. Patriotism and nationalism, for instance, suffer from the same problem. The extent of such abuse (or absence thereof) is driven by historic and social context.
Well I'm totally not ashamed of my body (if that's what you're suggesting), but I've just seen the harm immorality causes and want none of it.
Nope, I wasn't insinuating anything. I honestly suggest reading it like that once and if the guy writing it intended it that way, I can only say he was pretty insightful.
I honestly suggest reading it like that once and if the guy writing it intended it that way, I can only say he was pretty insightful.
My personal reading is more cosmic than merely human. "The fall" characterises the whole world, starting from the very basics - the second law of thermodynamics, which pretty much guarantees that everything will decay.
The other element is indeed that humans lose that child-like innocence of living absorbed in the present moment, and instead start living in their heads instead of in the world. That innocence is lost when you start listening to the serpent (society) as opposed to your own conscience.
He was trying to propel a snot ball at the United States. His take is that all Americans are exactly the same and they're all involved in decisions about the use of the military. Unanimously, they agree that Islam should be punished for some immoral action or other and therefore do odd things like drone strikes and what not.
Well, not quite. I suspect there are almost as many decent Americans as there are decent Brits and that's right up in the hundreds. My snot balls are directed at the self righteous of any faith or none. *Ducks to avoid own snot ball*.
But since my position on all things are of so much interest to so many, I will declare that I am against all organised religion on the grounds that it is like dried water, it does not quench one's thirst. But I am not an atheist either, or even a practicing agnostic. I am probably left wing by the standards of most Americans and have pacifist and anarchist leanings. Basically, I think we live in an anarchy, and this means there is nothing to prevent folks from forming governments. Some governments are worse than others. I put up with this, but reserve the right to complain, whenever I'm not too intimidated. However I am not a member of any political party, or of any religion.
Reply to unenlightened I appreciate that. Your position is worth understanding, value being something magically created in the market place.
One must not cry "Nigger!" and then be drop jawed that somebody was offended. Obviously...
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 21:55#734680 likes
Why in God's creation would a guardian over a female child cover up that the child had been raped? — ArguingWAristotleTiff
[quote="unenlightened] I'm sorry Tiff, but I find that question offensive. It comes across as a rhetorical denial that it ever happens. but it has happened and it does happen.[/quote]
Please, unenlightened, never feel sorry for finding something I say offensive and I am glad you said something.
I was not intending to come across as though it never happens but I was looking at the situation as an adult and a Mother. When you combine those two qualities, I become very, very protective Momma Bear. So I would pity the man that raped my child, not just because of the ramifications of the law but because of how I would react. To entertain the idea that I would consent to my child marrying an adult is to just light a fire under my most fierce reaction.
That might not be everyone else's approach, it might not even be the "right" approach but for me? I hope I never encounter such an adult because I am not sure I could bite my tongue or control myself.
I honestly suggest reading it like that once and if the guy writing it intended it that way, I can only say he was pretty insightful.
But I don't disagree that many people develop all sorts of neuroses with regards to sexuality. Largely out of trying to conform to society and its standards. It seems that some people accept pain and suffering as normality - part of life - and then go forth living with it, instead of always battling it. I've seen people having sex just because they feel something is wrong with them if they don't - that's clearly a message that they've received from society.
But take me as an example. My childhood was very open with regards to sexuality. I mean at 8 or 9 when I was still living at the countryside, us guys would show our genitals to each other, play with each other etc. Then we started to do it with the girls too. And so forth. There were very few inhibitions. Of course we hid from our parents because they would have been outraged from us doing stuff like that at that young age.
It was only as I advanced in age that I started to perceive the dangers of sexual immorality. First I noticed how much time some guys spend chasing women - time that they could spend much better, since most of that time, they were actually failing. Then I noticed how much some guys lose their dignity for a woman. Then when I had my first girlfriend, I started to notice how easily sexuality can hurt the other, and how significant it can be in a relationship. And so forth. I learned as I aged. A few years ago I would have said sex with someone you intend to marry is perfectly alright (despite the Church disagreeing with me). Now I think that's not right - I think it's actually a sign of independence from sex, and the relationship not depending on it at all to work. If that can happen, problems in marriage are less likely. And so forth - but I grew to this position, that day by day is closer to official Christian morality, rather slowly. Mind you, it's still not identical because I still claim sex for intimacy with your wife is moral, even in the absence of procreation.
Well, not quite. I suspect there are almost as many decent Americans as there are decent Brits and that's right up in the hundreds. My snot balls are directed at the self righteous of any faith or none. *Ducks to avoid own snot ball*.
But since my position on all things are of so much interest to so many, I will declare that I am against all organised religion on the grounds that it is like dried water, it does not quench one's thirst. But I am not an atheist either, or even a practicing agnostic. I am probably left wing by the standards of most Americans and have pacifist and anarchist leanings. Basically, I think we live in an anarchy, and this means there is nothing to prevent folks from forming governments. Some governments are worse than others. I put up with this, but reserve the right to complain, whenever I'm not too intimidated. However I am not a member of any political party, or of any religion.
#KrishnamurtiReloaded
You still haven't answered my questions.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 22:11#734720 likes
Just reading Orwell about being locked in perspective:
"For some months I lived entirely in coal-miners’ houses. I ate my meals with the family, I washed at the kitchen sink, I shared bedrooms with miners, drank beer with them, played darts with them, talked to them by the hour together... I... was not one of them, and they knew it even better than I did. However much you like them, however interesting you find their conversation, there is always that accursed itch of class-difference, like the pea under the princess’s mattress. It is not a question of dislike or distaste, only of difference, but it is enough to make real intimacy impossible."
Very cool passage Cavacava
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 22:34#734740 likes
Oral surgery with bone grafting on an upper tooth of mine. No Opiates, no Advil, Motrin, Aspirin, or Tylenol. Just a kick me in the ass antibiotic, ice packs and CBD's. It's a rough time but I am praying this works for the future work needed to be done on my mouth.
Here is the freaky part: after they removed the crown/tooth they hand filed the bone and then placed Cadaver bone in the hole which is now being held into my mouth by a stitched in membrane that holds the Cadaver bones in place.
Have I mentioned that it is Cadaver bones that are freaking me out a little. I mean who did it come from? Was it a male or a female? What nationality? What religious affiliation?
Does it really matter? I am wondering as I try to get the Cadaver bones to bond with my remaining bone to repair damage done to my jaw. I really want this to work and for the first time I have a bit of hope that I can get my smile back as I have missed it greatly.
Oral surgery with bone grafting on an upper tooth of mine. No Opiates, no Advil, Motrin, Aspirin, or Tylenol. Just a kick me in the ass antibiotic, ice packs and CBD's. It's a rough time but I am praying this works for the future work needed to be done on my mouth.
Here is the freaky part: after they removed the crown/tooth they hand filed the bone and then placed Cadaver bone in the hole which is now being held into my mouth by a stitched in membrane that holds the Cadaver bones in place.
Have I mentioned that it is Cadaver bones that are freaking me out a little. I mean who did it come from? Was it a male or a female? What nationality? What religious affiliation?
Does it really matter? I am wondering as I try to get the Cadaver bones to bond with my remaining bone to repair damage done to my jaw. I really want this to work and for the first time I have a bit of hope that I can get my smile back as I have missed it greatly.
That sounds painful, Tiff. I wish you a speedy recovery. Just out of curiosity, why are you not taking any pain relievers?
The use of cadaver bones is pretty standard in, for instance, spinal fusion procedures to augment the patient's own bone and to facilitate the healing process. I assume that they are similarly routinely used in maxillofacial applications like that described in your post. (Indeed, it would be pretty difficult to obtain significant quantities of human bone from anywhere other than a cadaver!)
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 31, 2017 at 23:00#734810 likes
That sounds painful, Tiff. I wish you a speedy recovery. Just out of curiosity, why are you not taking any pain relievers?
Arkady, thank you for your wishes, they mean a lot right now. I cannot take any Opiates as a result of my being addicted to OxyContin for 2.5 yrs after I broke my back horseback riding, and another 2.5 yrs to get off the Opiates with an Addiction/Pain specialist overseeing my care. At the end of that 5 yrs, I was functioning at 10% for the next 45 days and it was almost 60 days before I got my first Dopamine dump.
So I have made the decision to not ever use Opiates again. To the point that I list it as my being marked Allergic to Opiates and I have told my Pharmacy to call any Doctor who prescribes me any Opiate or any cousin, synthetic sisters of Opiates, as I have no desire to slay that Dragon again. The over the counter pain meds make my ulcers bleed so they are not an option either.
Do you think that the person that donated their cadaver for my tooth liked the blues?
I watched this televangelist Joel Osteen the other day. I must say that his message of unrestrained optimism is uplifting, especially when contrasted to the mopey posts on here asking what's the use of it all. You guys have just about turned me into a fundamentalist Christian. That's how bad you suck.
Reply to Hanover I've been watching that dude for a while now. He's worth listening to. He has an interesting audience in the break room... multi ethnic.
In my schooling I would often get half credit on math questions that I'd answer almost correctly, getting more right than other kids. So, no, my answer isn't equally as wrong as the other kid who just wrote a penis on his paper or something. Both wrong, but not both equally wrong.
Why do you think your personal experience is relevant to the point I was trying to make with my analogy? You argue against something intended as an image and missed my question and therefore my point.
What part is unclear? I identify what I consider the core problem; I can kill because the pope tells me to or because the president ordered it and I'm absolved from sin in the case of catholicism. Every religion (and some other social constructs) doles out such dispensation; the what, the how and against whom varies from time to time and location.
I saw a nice quote today in Dutch that I'd like to share.
Samenleving. Dat werkt alleen als je het letterlijk neemt.
"Samenleving" is the Dutch word for society but it's literal translation would be "together living". So in a literal sense it say "Living together (society). It only works if you take it literally."
My conspiracy theory is that they want me to go to war and reduce the population, so hey want me to be horrified about 'them'.
— unenlightened
Why would they want to reduce the population? More people = greater revenue potential + cheaper workers.
I am weak, and that is your horror
— unenlightened
Why would you think that?
1. Very briefly. The formula of mass production and mass consumption as the best source of profit is ending with the development of bespoke 3D printing and intelligent robotics. The masses used to be needed to produce, but that is ending, and everyone is now in the service industries, serving each other. In profit terms, this is pure waste; better to eliminate them altogether.
2. I'm not going trawling for quotes, but it is what you say, and how you respond to what others say - what else could it be? Oh on second thoughts, here's one example:
If you have strength of character you won't be a doormat. You'll be an invitation to something more. A doormat is characterised by need - a doormat is captive to their needs, self-centered and will do anything to get them fulfilled. A doormat is obsessed and attached to winning.
A great man on the other hand can tolerate the pettiness of those smaller than them because he doesn't need anything from them. The person who doesn't need anything from the world has conquered the world. He is free. He is always a winner, because if the world refuses him, he never gives up. That person can demand from the world, and the world will do all it can to fulfil his demands - because it will be in awe at his character. He will start by being laughed at, but soon he will be seen as a god amongst men. The character of a great man overcomes the pettiness of those around him. His willingness to suffer, his willingness to go to the very ends of the world. The way he gambles with his life, as if it were nothing - a petty thing to be thrown away - that is what raises him above the rest.
2. I'm not going trawling for quotes, but it is what you say, and how you respond to what others say - what else could it be? Oh on second thoughts, here's one example:
Okay, yes, I despise weakness of character, not weakness of any sort. If someone is overcome by external forces, that is weakness too, but yet I don't despise that if his spirit remains strong.
Reply to Agustino It is not 'bad', you were merely experimenting with pleasurable sensations prior to the development of the superego. I hope you are not punishing yourself now with chastity because of this?
So that improves you. How does that make the world a better place?
Well, first of all, a better me = a better world. If you better yourself, the whole world becomes better. In addition, my character can inspire other people.
Well, first of all, a better me = a better world. If you better yourself, the whole world becomes better. In addition, my character can inspire other people.
It strikes me as rather unchristian. God humbled himself becoming human and engaged us despite all our horrible savagery.
It also doesn't quite make sense why you wouldn't want to engage the other person and discuss their behaviour. Ignoring it, is as good as condoning it (assuming it is such immoral behaviour that it's worth despising). You said your parents taught you that "evil people get ahead", or something similar and that you totally disagree with it. For evil people to get ahead it is sufficient that good people do nothing.
So your decision not to engage and to be pre-occupied with yourself, as almost everybody does in this cultural bubble of individualism, is precisely why in practise your parents are pretty close to the mark. It's not evil people who get ahead, it's people who act without concern for the consequences to others and when those others let them. I'd suggest you speak up and help those you consider weak and lift them up if you can. There's not much inspirational about someone who only acknowledges others because those others managed to cross some arbitrary threshold you personally set for them.
You said your parents taught you that "evil people get ahead", or something similar and that you totally disagree with it. For evil people to get ahead it is sufficient that good people do nothing.
Yes, I agree. The other part of it is that all too often goodness is associated with passivity and weakness - we view goodness only as turning the other cheek, not also as chasing the money-lenders out of the temple with the whip. I think this false association between weakness and goodness does much harm, which is why I'm opposed to what I see as weakness of character, which permits evil to flourish.
So your decision not to engage and to be pre-occupied with yourself, as almost everybody does in this cultural bubble of individualism, is precisely why in practise your parents are pretty close to the mark.
I'm not sure. You may be right, but I'm the only one who is fully within my control. I can't guarantee others will change, or that others will be good people, etc. Each man or woman can only play their part. And they should at least play that one well.
I'm not sure. You may be right, but I'm the only one who is fully within my control. I can't guarantee others will change, or that others will be good people, etc. Each man or woman can only play their part. And they should at least play that one well.
A great man on the other hand can tolerate the pettiness of others. The person who doesn't need anything from others is free. He is always a winner, because if the world refuses him, he never gives up on other people.
Some suggestions on that earlier text. ;)
It's very easy not to give up on yourself unless you have a clinical depression. I agree you cannot guarantee others will change but you can change tactics and try again. Your strength in arguing your points vehemently is also your weakness; not everybody is sensitive to rational argument to begin with. So even if they're good points, you will often not reach others.
I'm 39 and I'm still learning to listen as I've only managed with you in the past two days (I'm the argumentative type too). I can appreciate your comments more even if I disagree on many things.
I agree with Augustine that we are born with an evil tendency, and we only overcome it by effort.
The only effort you would need to maintain is a dedication to knowing your subjective and the external world so that you can strengthen the cognition that would differentiate your mechanical, instinctual drives that propel us to behave without reason; when one is incapable of moral reasoning, they have no conscience and that is what evil tendency is. It is not a demon, not an implanted darkness that we need to escape or remove, but quite simply a state of mind. Just like how our minds can process an anxious experience and automatically repress or avoid it and thus the experience does not translate into past-tense and you end up stuck with unknown sensations of anxiety, by avoiding rather than accepting the nature of our existence is a type of self-deception that inevitably leads us to commit the very evil that we seek to avoid. Wisdom is an authenticity of this awareness.
Once, my chastity was based on my fear of men because my upbringing wasn't that great, but it was based on a repressed anxiety and I felt safe when I was alone as I did when I was a child; as an adult, this was self-deceptive and why it was like a punishment and why I had no subjective peace. I am peace now because I became honest with myself. Now, I am level-headed to comfortably reason that it is impossible for me to submit to a relationship without authenticity; it has nothing to do with marriage or sex, just genuine reason alone where I cannot be with someone who does not have the wisdom to understand, protect and love me as much as I would on my own. Otherwise, what is the point?
I watched this televangelist Joel Osteen the other day. I must say that his message of unrestrained optimism is uplifting, especially when contrasted to the mopey posts on here asking what's the use of it all.
If I were as wealthy as Osteen, I would probably be brimming with unrestrained optimism, too.
Your strength in arguing your points vehemently is also your weakness; not everybody is sensitive to rational argument to begin with. So even if they're good points, you will often not reach others.
Agreed. The other issue is that reason isn't like the emotions - it doesn't instantly move people. It often takes a lot of time for reason to become effective. And this is especially true if the points are contrary to what people already hold as true. But you are right, I can alienate people because of my vehemence, and I often do. More strangely though, some of those I alienate at first, end up appreciating me later on. My policy is that it's better to be honest and abandoned than dishonest and admired.
I'm 39 and I'm still learning to listen as I've only managed with you in the past two days (I'm the argumentative type too). I can appreciate your comments more even if I disagree on many things.
That is good you are striving to do that, it's admirable!
Okay, yes, I despise weakness of character, not weakness of any sort. If someone is overcome by external forces, that is weakness too, but yet I don't despise that if his spirit remains strong.
There's a thread in this if I could find the right angle; we are not that far apart, I suspect. But on weakness and dependency, the predator, prey relationship is instructive. The predator is stronger, by definition, but is also the more dependent in the relationship. The fox needs the rabbit more than the rabbit needs the fox.
Now I'm a fan of independence; I like to do my own plumbing, grow my own food, educate myself independently, and so on. It gives me a certain resilience and adaptability in changing circumstances, but it keeps me firmly at the bottom of the economy. We peasants are fairly independent, whereas leaders need followers, and servants to do all the things they are too important to do, like the washing.
If I were as wealthy as Osteen, I would probably be brimming with unrestrained optimism, too.
There's nothing profound or enlightened about knee jerk cynicism, which was sort of my point in referring to the positive impact of an optimistic message, even when it arises in an ideological context (fundamentalist Christian) very foreign to my own. That is to say, you just pulled out the same old tired response that all is underhanded, dishonest, and untrustworthy, despite having no earthly idea what the good Mr. Osteen has ever said. None of this is to say that I care if you agree with anything he says, but it's only to remark that there's nothing that ought to bind intellectualism to negativity, although there seems to be a strong current of that line of thinking generally.
I'm 39 and I'm still learning to listen as I've only managed with you in the past two days (I'm the argumentative type too). I can appreciate your comments more even if I disagree on many things.
If I were as wealthy as Osteen, I would probably be brimming with unrestrained optimism, too.
Yeah right, as if wealth alone could change your inner state. Wealth is valuable - it can help you do a lot of things in the world for others - but it's not going to decide your inner state.
Reply to unenlightened My dog toted in a dead rabbit yesterday. There a tons more out there. It's an integrated biosphere revealing the wisdom of Ecclesiaticus: there's a time for strength and a time for weakness.
Agustino is just a kid. It's definitely time for him to be strong.
The predator is stronger, by definition, but is also the more dependent in the relationship. The fox needs the rabbit more than the rabbit needs the fox.
I can sort of see that, but why would you say the fox needs the rabbit more than the other way around? Just because it requires the rabbit for survival, while the rabbit doesn't require the fox?
I like to do my own plumbing, grow my own food, educate myself independently, and so on. It gives me a certain resilience and adaptability in changing circumstances, but it keeps me firmly at the bottom of the economy.
I don't follow this. Why are you on the bottom of the economy if you're individually capable to do so many things? If you grow your own food, why don't you sell some of it? If you do your own plumbing, why don't you do it for other people too? etc.
I am peace now because I became honest with myself. Now, I am level-headed to comfortably reason that it is impossible for me to submit to a relationship without authenticity; it has nothing to do with marriage or sex, just genuine reason alone where I cannot be with someone who does not have the wisdom to understand, protect and love me as much as I would on my own. Otherwise, what is the point?
Right, you're doing what I've done some years ago in understanding that there's a price to be paid for everything, and realising when you're getting a bad deal - when the price isn't worth paying. There's no point in wasting time with the wrong person just to "be with someone".
On the one hand, I'm too busy making shift for myself, and on the other, to work for another is to be dependent on them - hence the term 'wage slave'. I sometimes do stuff for nothing, but people don't like it much - they find it demeaning. Money is the measure of dependency; whenever I buy goods or services, I enter a web of dependency, on the one side on the provider of goods or services, and on the other side on whoever is the source of my money, given that one of the things I don't do is print my own money.
There's an efficiency factor too. Mass production is far more efficient, but one depends on the mass to do it.
to work for another is to be dependent on them - hence the term 'wage slave'.
Who said you have to work for another as a wage slave? That's not what I've been implying. I hate that kind of work, and yes, you're never going to make money out of stuff like that, just burn yourself out.
Why is it bad to be a wage slave? Because your employer controls your TIME! He controls when you get up, what you do during the day, where you eat, who you speak to, etc. He also controls how you come dressed to work, what rules you have to obey, and all sorts of other bullshit. If you're a wage slave you can't pop on TPF in the middle of the day and write a 1500 word post. That may be fine for people who are willing to make themselves slaves for the security of consistent payment, but not for someone who (1) has the skills to be self-reliant, (2) has the skills necessary to helps others, (3) wants to do something in the world.
But that's not your only choice. It took me about a year to realise that. You can work as self-employed, or start a business with your own values - based on useful work you can do for others. I'm self-employed at the moment, and for example past week I've been making close to $100/day average, all payments for projects I've finished awhile ago. I can pop in the middle of the day like now and write a long post here - because my time isn't controlled by an employer. If there's people I don't like, I just don't work with them. Nobody tells me how to dress, what time to wake up, etc. I can work at 0:00 in the night if I feel like it or the regular 6:00-12:00 + slower work after. That sounds like independence to me.
And I'm in a place where costs of living are very low. People live with $500/month here - $1000 gets you very comfortable. But why waste that money, when you can save it, and use them to grow your reach? The more money you make (& save) the more you can influence society and ultimately make the world a better place. Anything of value requires money to sustain itself, even Krishnamurti needed money to fly around the world and spread his teachings (despite claiming he needs none of it). And that's not bad - money is just a means.
Not really, money is just a way to get things done in the world. Do you want to help other people? Then you need money. Whether it's your own, or others' money. And guess what, your own is always better. If you rely on money from others, they will dictate what you do with it, and then you'll really be dependent on them. That's why relying for funding on X Y Z for your NGO to help children in Africa is suicide - X Y Z will dictate what you do, since you depend on them to get the money you need to put in place better irrigation systems, etc.
There's an efficiency factor too. Mass production is far more efficient, but one depends on the mass to do it.
Depends. Mass production may be more efficient at producing a LOT of X. But maybe I don't want a lot of X of poor quality. Maybe I want a few X of high quality with amazing service. The market doesn't want just vegetables. It also wants naturally grown, no GMCs, fresh vegetables.
If you can control the education - through for example marketing - and the distribution - then you can help steer the world in a better direction than merely produce as much as possible and consume as much as possible (which currently is the general trend).
You can work as self-employed, or start a business with your own values - based on useful work you can do for others.
Yes, I've done that too, as a landscape gardener, and as a vegetarian grocer. I've also worked without pay for an education charity, and as a community baker. Because independence is pretty much impossible - no one wants to be their own dentist. But self-employment does not make one independent of others , thought it gives you some freedoms if the circumstances are right. But if the circumstances are wrong, it can mean that one loses all employment protection including a minimum wage, for the dubious benefit of the freedom to starve. One is dependent again, on others keeping the marketplace some kind of level playing field, and on clients playing fair, or courts to make em.
People think that wealth makes them independent, but it is not so, because wealth is a social construct.
As it happens, I own the whole world, but unfortunately society has yet to recognise this. :D
The fact that the earliest cities used money suggests that society is a money-construct. Or it's part of the technology by which we made ourselves...if you're hip to paradoxes.
Why do you think your personal experience is relevant to the point I was trying to make with my analogy? You argue against something intended as an image and missed my question and therefore my point.
And I still fail to see what your "point" is, apart from what I've quoted and already addressed. Telling me that I've missed this "point" isn't going to be an amenable cop-out with me.
What part is unclear? I identify what I consider the core problem; I can kill because the pope tells me to or because the president ordered it and I'm absolved from sin in the case of catholicism. Every religion (and some other social constructs) doles out such dispensation; the what, the how and against whom varies from time to time and location.
A. You can't kill merely because the Pope tells you to, and B. soldiers kill in the name of country, and all that is associated with it, the office of the President being one.
Also, I like how you didn't even reply to your hypocrisy about justice. Again, just as you've done again, you hate it when it appears as though people act in the name of Pope so and so, or religion xyz, but you give yourself a pass because moral judgement begins and ends with you. Absolutely lunacy.
The fact that the earliest cities used money suggests that society is a money-construct. Or it's part of the technology by which we made ourselves...if you're hip to paradoxes.
It would be the other way around, at least in the earliest Fertile Crescent communities.
Reply to Mongrel I'm butting into this conversation. I meant to contest your saying that society is a money-construct, and that, in fact, money is a construct of society. Did you write somewhere why you think society is a money-construct?
Reply to Heister Eggcart Mostly by creating a sedentary class. I'm reading now about community meals using Uruk ware. What I wouldn't give to have a time machine.
I'm mainly rejecting the notion that there was something we would recognize as society prior to the existence of wealth.
I'm mainly rejecting the notion that there was something we would recognize as society prior to the existence of wealth.
Money -> something to exchange valuable goods with is different than wealth. Un was talking about wealth being a social construct, not money. Probably people first organised themselves in societies by exchanging goods directly - you give me your apples, I give you my oranges - without the use of money. As things became more diversified, money became a necessary invention to simplify the process.
But if the circumstances are wrong, it can mean that one loses all employment protection including a minimum wage, for the dubious benefit of the freedom to starve.
Is it entirely about the circumstances though? Maybe I was just lucky, but it seems to me that it's a lot about finding work for yourself. I mean it feels like you must be doing something wrong to fail. Not making enough calls, not leveraging people/companies you've already worked with, not providing something valuable enough etc.
One is dependent again, on others keeping the marketplace some kind of level playing field, and on clients playing fair, or courts to make em.
That depends on how you structure things for yourself. I admit that there are some industries (construction for example) where procedures are quite standard. But not all industries are like that. For example I don't really care if clients don't play fair, because they still pay me 50% upfront + they don't actually receive login details until I get another 25% or 50% (depending on project). Even if things were unfair, I don't expect the courts to be of much use. Courts are only useful if you have the financial resources to ensure that the law gets enforced. Otherwise, what good will it do? A big company can afford to run me around the courts, but I can't afford to run them.
And I still fail to see what your "point" is, apart from what I've quoted and already addressed. Telling me that I've missed this "point" isn't going to be an amenable cop-out with me.
Why would I answer your question if you don't answer mine? It's quid pro quo buddy.
The rest of your post is just verbal aggressiveness I don't feel any inclination to reply to. Calm down a bit and try it with some respect towards me.
Of course it isn't entirely. But if you are a woman in Syria, you are going to find business rather more difficult than if you are a white male in a wealthy European country. Circumstances are important. To take it to a cliched extreme, if you were a successful Jew in Nazi Germany, you'd likely be in more of a target than if you were a failure. If your property rights are not respected by society, as I joked before, you have no wealth regardless of your business acumen. Like the rest of the world, you have completely ignored my ownership of everything. :(
Reply to Agustino Wealth is integral to society as we know it. Demolish wealth and millions will starve to death. If you can call your lungs a body construct, then wealth is a social construct.
all equally bad because they're all false. Period. Then I listed a series of things various practioners of different religions at some point in time or currently are guilty of.
...to which I contested, pointing out to you that you've conflated the moral status of a religion's truth claims with the moral failings of those people who label themselves as belonging to religion x, y, or z. As I wrote before, the child molesting priests in the Catholic Church is an example of people, Christians in this case, behaving badly, very badly. That there have been, and are, rotten priests, Popes, Buddhist monks, whomever else, does not indict the religion in itself but rather the people who fail to live up to and act in accordance with the ethics taught in religions like Christianity. Again, your claim is that religions are all equally immoral (bad, as you write) because they are all equally false, but instead of comparing religious doctrines, you look at the dirty dozens, as if they somehow reflect the religion's teaching. I mean, does murder require a Pope's supposed sanctioning every single time? Are little children only abused and raped by religious people? Of course not. Say we dig up an instance of sexual abuse from every single workplace environment across the world, from inside the factories to inside school classrooms, is the mere fact that machinists and teachers commit immoral deeds in all these places enough to argue, as you have done with regard to religion, that every working environment is, therefore, false because they're all "bad"? As I've said several times now, this claim of yours simply does not hold. And to be honest, I think you know you fudged your claims up, but you're too proud to admit that you were being silly. So, either you address my own argumentative replies, or you continue to bow out like a derp. The choice is yours, of course, as only you can determine what justice may be applied to the proper ending of this "discussion." ;)
Mostly by creating a sedentary class. I'm reading now about community meals using Uruk ware. What I wouldn't give to have a time machine.
Sedentary as in a landed class? The landed "class" in the earliest Mesopotamian communities had nearly the most power and social leverage because they controlled food distribution. The best farmers of the land made the most food, thus creating dependency between those with land and the expertise to make food, and those who perhaps had less land or no land at all and little to no expertise with regard to farming. After this established relationship is when you get a dedicated labor class, bounty religions, organized militiaries, an additional valuation of labor like money - all this and more created the earliest societies.
I'm mainly rejecting the notion that there was something we would recognize as society prior to the existence of wealth.
Wealth or money? Money would denote coinage, which was the term I thought you were first arguing on. If, instead of money, you'd rather argue that "wealth", however abstract you might define that term, was before proper society, I'd prolly agree.
Sedentary as in a landed class? The landed "class" in the earliest Mesopotamian communities had nearly the most power and social leverage because they controlled food distribution.
What are you referring to as the earliest Mesopotamian communities? The Halaf culture? The Ubaid period? When?
Reply to Michael You should watch it, it's quite entertaining. There were some funny moments - particularly in the middle of the interview and near the end - when Andrew Neil, rightly in my opinion, had to really put his foot down and reproach Farron for filibustering, talking over the top of him, and repeatedly answering different questions to the questions he was asking.
They're all guilty of those things to some extent, including Corbyn, as evidenced in his own interview with Andrew Neil, but he handled it better and things didn't get quite so ridiculous and out-of-hand as they did in the Farron interview.
Mary Berry rocks. I auditioned for the Aussie Bake Off, got to third round. My vegetarian shepherds pie was awesome but I wasn't interesting enough to merit television :-x
Reply to TimeLine I should clarify that I wasn't actually watching Bake Off (and never have). It was a reference to Farron's closing comment in the recent debate: "Amber Rudd is up next. She is not the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister isn't here. She can't be bothered. So why should you? In fact Bake Off is on BBC2 next. Why not make a brew. You’re not worth Theresa May’s time. Don't give her yours."
Reply to Michael "Applied philosophy considers as a single generative matrix the discursive praxis and its validation in a real object." Baking, I can assure you, is harder than Being and Time.
There's nothing profound or enlightened about knee jerk cynicism, which was sort of my point in referring to the positive impact of an optimistic message, even when it arises in an ideological context (fundamentalist Christian) very foreign to my own. That is to say, you just pulled out the same old tired response that all is underhanded, dishonest, and untrustworthy, despite having no earthly idea what the good Mr. Osteen has ever said. None of this is to say that I care if you agree with anything he says, but it's only to remark that there's nothing that ought to bind intellectualism to negativity, although there seems to be a strong current of that line of thinking generally.
Where in my post did I say that "all is underhanded, dishonest, and untrustworthy"? And while I'm not a student of the good Mr. Osteen's work, it is false to say that I have "no earthly idea" what he has ever said (nor did my post convey that implication). In fact, my response to you was a slightly tongue-in-cheek jab at Osteen's so-called prosperity gospel, and his great personal wealth (you know, the way Jesus did it).
In fact, there are at least some good reasons for optimism (I'd recommend checking out Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist for a good read along those lines), and perhaps Osteen gives some good reasons, but really, I see no reason for regarding him as much different as any other shiny-suited blowhard in the vein of Jerry Falwell and company, who have profited mightily off of the superstitious credulity of the American public (though Osteen does seem to soft-peddle at least some of the social issues which so bedeviled the likes of Falwell).
In fact, my response to you was a slightly tongue-in-cheek jab at Osteen's so-called prosperity gospel, and his great personal wealth (you know, the way Jesus did it).
Reply to Agustino Not really. I would my prefer my brain to function without the intoxicated influence of drugs and alcohol but would rather face-off reality. It's boring being a paranoid coward.
Not really. I would my prefer my brain to function without the intoxicated influence of drugs and alcohol but would rather face-off reality. It's boring being a paranoid coward.
Why are you telling me, I never took drugs, and I don't drink >:O
Reply to Michael Make your brownies, but before baking, beat 250g of cream cheese, one egg, 1/4 cup sugar and 1/2 teaspoon vanilla essence, and dollop on top. Heidegger would be impressed.
It's actually the first time I turned on this guy, and it's not bad >:O . Why wouldn't this guy deserve the money, he's encouraging a lot of people to be positive, I can bet a lot of people would say they've been helped by listening to his sermons. He delivers what people want, of course he's going to make money.
He actually makes an important point - man is made in the image of God, the angels (and demons) aren't. Man is in this sense the centre of creation. I've come upon this point in my reading of Hermeticism in a book recommended by John, and this guy seems to be putting it in a way that's accessible to the multitudes.
Reply to TimeLine What's wrong? Philosophers aren't the only people on Earth. We need people who can communicate effectively to the multitudes as well, otherwise the message will remain stuck among a small group of people.
Reply to Agustino I don't really want to go down your slippery slope, but I think the whole world should shut the fuck up for a change and maybe start listening to themselves.
I don't really want to go down your slippery slope, but I think the whole world should shut the fuck up for a change and maybe start to listening to themselves.
Okay but not everyone is destined to be an independent and free spirit. Some people like the structure that can be provided by, for example, a fixed, secure job, a community telling them what to believe, etc. Not everyone is a leader and a free spirit. But there's nothing wrong with those people, they too deserve respect.
Not everyone is a leader and a free spirit. But there's nothing wrong with those people, they too deserve respect.
Independence was not a choice for me, I need to work in a fixed, secure job in order to survive and I am scared as hell and have been for a long time. But to be a 'free-spirit' is not a given, but a choice because one requires an independence in their conscious decisions in order for those decisions to be genuine or authentic. Otherwise, anything 'good' is superficial at best, good only in the eyes of a community telling you that it is good; you cannot really love if you follow others.
Independence was not a choice for me, I need to work in a fixed, secure job in order to survive and I am scared as hell and have been for a long time.
Yes, but you are capable of educating yourself, studying and learning. Not many people are capable to be so self-motivated. You may be scared, but then think about how scared people who know they can't educate themselves, who don't have any motivation, etc. - think how scared they must be. Somebody who can provide a little hope and education in a language they can understand - like Joel Osteen - greatly helps them.
That's the thing with fear. We generally think only we are afraid. And we overestimate how afraid we are, and underestimate how afraid others are.
But to be a 'free-spirit' is not a given, but a choice because one requires an independence in their conscious decisions in order for those decisions to be genuine or authentic. Otherwise, anything 'good' is superficial at best, good only in the eyes of a community telling them that it is good; you cannot really love if you follow others.
Sure, I agree apart from the last part. Those who follow can love too. They are just followers, not leaders - that doesn't make them less worthy of being human or anything else. We each have different talents and purposes.
You may be scared, but then think about how scared people who know they can't educate themselves, who don't have any motivation, etc. - think how scared they must be.
What a load of codswallop. People who are afraid to educate themselves are afraid of breaking from the determined simplicity formed as part of their identity during childhood since such an education would enable autonomy; the greatest anxiety that people feel is the reality that they are separate and distinct from others. The responsibility is so overwhelming that they repress it by conforming, reverting back to the safe and comfortable feelings that such mindlessness evokes. They have chosen to submit and the approval by others produces a superficial happiness that is enough to sustain their own self-deceit. An illusion cannot motivate self-education, it is farcical at best.
My fear is the fact that I have absolute freedom; I am not connected to a religion, to a community of people, to a social image, and I don't even have a family. It is scary because I am on my own in the physical world and communities can provide or encourage a sense of both security and belonging. But, it would be a lie for me to submit to a community if they have no mind of their own, no authenticity in their understanding.
The only thing I can do is make friends that I am confident has the autonomy and moral worthiness and call them a part of my 'community' as a group of independent thinkers.
No they aren't afraid to do it, they're just not motivated to do it. They're lazy, they have things that they want more easily. They have a job that pays the bills, they get to spend some time with loved ones, etc. It's not fear, but lack of motivation - laziness - that decides for most.
I've educated myself because I was afraid, and fear has always been an important driving force for me, but this isn't the majority. I also have very big goals, so it's easy for me to get afraid of failure, and therefore get my ass moving to learn more.
No you don't have absolute freedom. Anyone who lives in society doesn't have absolute freedom because we depend on others. For example you depend on others for your job. They choose how you dress at work, who you meet, who you talk to, etc.
It is scary because I am on my own in the physical world and communities can provide or encourage a sense of both security and belonging. But, it would be a lie for me to submit to a community if they have no mind of their own, no authenticity in their understanding.
Yeah, that's the price you're paying for not being a part of a community. I'm much the same, most of my relationships are business relationships and not friendships at the moment. But that's just because I haven't found a community that's right for me, and if you don't find it, as one of my mentors used to say, you have to create it :P
Why do you reckon they'd feel anxiety at that? Most people as far as I'm aware are aware that they are separate and distinct from others, so what?
Without authenticity, this so-called 'separate and distinct' you refer to is an illusory concept that enables one to believe that they are making independent decisions and that they are unique somehow. So many people in my community think they are being 'themselves and independent' by getting tattoos and dressing the same way, they even talk the same way. The idea of the 'individual' is imagined, an ideological concept that permits a false individuation in a community that blindly follow in masses. The actual, existential independence is a completely different reality.
Again, your understanding of freedom is base; it is the freedom, the autonomy of mind that I am talking about. I may have no choice but to work and I feel like a little girl caught in a scary world surrounded by monsters, but I make choices that reflect this free-spirit that enables a power over the determined environment I live in. I chose giving up on a wealthy career in policy and law to work at grassroots level with disadvantaged children. I choose not to depend on others emotionally. The requirements that we must adhere to is an obligation, but doing so with a mindless willingness is something else.
Yeah, that's the price you're paying for not being a part of a community. I'm much the same, most of my relationships are business relationships and not friendships at the moment. But that's just because I haven't found a community that's right for me, and if you don't find it, as one of my mentors used to say, you have to create it
I am not paying any price except the odd moment of loneliness, but again, it is not a depressed loneliness but a moment of wishing that someone out there understood me and that goes away pretty quickly. And it is not so much a community as it is a 'belief' in that community; ideological beliefs are imagined, but it gives people a sense of community and so the problem is the illusion itself.
I think that someone who silences their own desperation to be autonomous by submitting and being too afraid to think and act with an independent consciousness is a greater price, despite the fact that everyone approves of them and they have a sense of some belonging.
Again, your understanding of freedom is base; it is the freedom, the autonomy of mind that I am talking about. I may have no choice but to work and I feel like a little girl caught in a scary world surrounded by monsters, but I make choices that reflect this free-spirit that enables a power over the determined environment I live in.
Everyone has exactly the same choices, I don't see why you have anymore choices than the next door person.
I chose giving up on a wealthy career in policy and law to work at grassroots level with disadvantaged children. I choose not to depend on others emotionally. The requirements that we must adhere to is an obligation, but doing so with a mindless willingness is something else.
Right, but other people make similar choices too. We are all aware that we must make choices, and find out what path to walk. Even the person who chooses to get a wealthy career in policy and law - despite that being extremely unlikely, most lawyers aren't very rich - they're making a choice too. And there are prices to be paid for it. Maybe they have to sleep with this other big lawyer to move up in the firm. Who knows. Maybe they have to engage in exhortation to get the witness evidence they need, etc. There's always prices to be paid, even for what are taken to be "standard" choices.
I am not paying any price except the odd moment of loneliness, but again, it is not a depressed loneliness but a moment of wishing that someone out there understood me and that goes away pretty quickly. And it is not so much a community as it is a 'belief' in that community; ideological beliefs are imagined, but it gives people a sense of community and so the problem is the illusion itself.
So you're still paying a price. You'd pay a price if you chose the opposite way too. There's always prices to be paid for making decisions. It's the opportunity cost.
Responsibility of autonomous decision-making, zurechnung, an accountability one holds as a moral agent to themselves.
Nonsense. Zurcucuucu whatever. Look, we are autonomous, whether we like it or not. Even that person who makes choices of willingly following what they're told, they're also autonomous, and doing a cost-benefit calculation - just like you - and choosing one path. If someone rich like Bill Gates comes to you tomorrow and says sleep with me and I'll give you 1 million dollars, you have a choice. You can choose to give up your dignity in exchange for 1 million dollars or you can choose to keep your dignity and give up 1 million. These are choices. There's no question of autonomy. In both cases you are autonomous. It's a question of values. What's more important - 1 million, or your dignity? It's a question of how to make the right choices, given that you must choose something.
In fact, there are at least some good reasons for optimism (I'd recommend checking out Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist for a good read along those lines), and perhaps Osteen gives some good reasons, but really
I've read a few reviews and introductions to Matt Ridley's book and it's in a totally different market than Joel Osteen, so it's like comparing apples and oranges. Matt Ridley tells me why I should be optimistic about the economy, and free trade and cultural progressivism, etc. Basically he tells you "how to remain stuck to the world as it is". Joel aims to motivate, Matt aims to proselytise in favor of the status quo.
In fact, my response to you was a slightly tongue-in-cheek jab at Osteen's so-called prosperity gospel, and his great personal wealth (you know, the way Jesus did it).
I'd agree that he preaches that prosperity will follow faith, but I don't agree that he defines prosperity purely as economic. Regardless, my initial post only pointed out what I do believe is true, and that is there is a great chasm between the religious and the non-religious as it relates to the optimism of the religious. It does seem like the non-religious want to link their pessimism to a lack of naiveté, intellectualism, and sophistication and insist everything really is as bad as we can imagine. It's the philosophy of Eeyore. If it takes a fundamentalist Christian to shake you us out of our funk, so be it.
"Applied philosophy considers as a single generative matrix the discursive praxis and its validation in a real object." Baking, I can assure you, is harder than Being and Time.
My own experience certainly bears this out. In my later years I believe I have understood much of 'Being and Time'. But baking remains an arcane mystery to me. And alas, I can't pass on your latest baking tip to the baker of the house, as she's just gone vegan.
It does seem like the non-religious want to link their pessimism to a lack of naiveté, intellectualism, and sophistication and insist everything really is as bad as we can imagine. It's the philosophy of Eeyore.
Really? I didn't mean it condescendingly at all. I was just curious. I have a long-standing interest in history and culture.
Oh, well my mistake, then. My "condescension" senses are usually set to 100% when I'm on this forum, so my first reaction was to be skeptical O:)
So, my father was a history professor for many years, my mother an English teacher (still is, I took two of her classes in high school several years ago :) ). This helped me to appreciate the humanities from an early age. We had thousands of books in our home, maps, I'd play with legos and the historical playmobil sets. I would watch Ben Hur and Spartacus and all the other classic movies from 50 years ago. We also had this 4 ft. tall bronze statue of Constantine in our living room which was always very cool. After awhile I'd start to play some of the early strategy computer games like Age of Empires, Stronghold, etc. All this stuff was the foundation. I couldn't do much reading because my reading level wasn't high enough for a lot of things, but I got that covered now, thankfully.
And I guess more recently I've been intrigued about really ancient Western civ after taking an art history class in college that focused on all the little figurines and potteries and mother goddesses. I'm most in love with the Minoans. There's something intensely romantic, nostalgic, otherworldly, fascinating, everything about them. Talk about an interesting society that did its own thing!
Minoans. Awesome. Have you ever been to the Penn Museum? I'm trying to schedule a trip up there in the next year or so. They also have some lectures on youtube.
I became fascinated by the Gilgamesh epic.. trying to fathom the symbols. I grew up with a heavy focus on biblical stuff, so discovering the roots of Genesis.. the genesis of Genesis.. is fascinating to me.
I think Osteen's a pretty reasonable guy if you cut out "God" and "faith" and "prosperity."
I haven't even noticed the prosperity angle. His emphasis on self-love is what grabbed my attention. Although he phrases it as "God loves you." I guess I've been translating that to: "Love yourself."
Reply to Baden Obviously I'm not defending televangelism in all its wonderful forms, but I was speaking solely of the good Mr. Osteen, who I ask you watch. You might be surprised. I certainly was.
I'd also point out that your reference to a band named Suicidal Tendencies doesn't exactly contradict my point that the naysayers are somewhat on the depressed side.
Keep with it Eeyore and sadly wander your thousand acres woods with Christopher whoever it is.
I'd also point out that your reference to a band named Suicidal Tendencies doesn't exactly contradict my point that the naysayers are somewhat on the depressed side.
Anyway, I'm sure Mr. Osteen is not any more interested in money than Jesus was and just earned those 56 million dollars of his by accident.
Don't be silly Baden. If you reached millions of people and sold millions of copies of your books, you'd be a millionaire several times over too. It's difficult not to be a millionaire when you impact a very large number of people.
No, you definitely don't reach millions of people by accident, regardless of what you do. Whatever you're doing, you must be doing something significant.
I didn't say anything about reaching people by accident.
Yes, and I've told you that if you reach millions of people (not by accident), then it's not unlikely that you're a multimillionaire. Why? Because it takes a lot of millions to reach people in the first place. Spreading your message takes $$.
Obviously I'm not defending televangelism in all its wonderful forms, but I was speaking solely of the good Mr. Osteen, who I ask you watch. You might be surprised. I certainly was.
No I won't be surprised if he tells me what I want to hear. That's his job. Duh.
You reach millions of people by being a good marketer. I'm still not seeing the connection to Jesus here.
Indeed. His merit is that he reaches to millions of people with a distilled version of the Bible that most can understand and relate to. People like him cannot decide on doctrine and truth, but they can help spread the message, which is necessary.
Joel Osteen is a business. He sells warm and fuzzy religious ideas with a big smile. That type of thing works in the US. It goes down like a bucket of sick in Europe. If you think there's merit in it, I suggest you get into it. Hint: focus on dumb people with fat wallets.
And is that a problem? Churches should be businesses in order to keep up with the economy and have sufficient resources to have an impact on people's lives. Many people, especially in Europe - including most of my relatives - have a notion that money is evil. And so if a religious organisation makes money, there's something wrong about it. Really? How the hell is an organisation supposed to be effective if it doesn't make money? How can it be effective when it has to rely on others for money, and therefore receives instructions from them? Whoever gives the money, gives the orders.
He sells warm and fuzzy religious ideas with a big smile.
Sure, but that's better than nothing. This is what sells. Those people aren't ready to hear complicated theology, etc. They need to hear something that can help them right now. So the Church must give messages for everyone - the masses, as well as those who want to know more, and truly understand.
Yes, because everyone is so fucking depressed in Europe. For example, I'm the only optimistic person amongst my relatives. Everyone else is pessimistic. I was talking to my cousin's wife awhile ago. She was amazed I don't go on holiday and stay to work instead. She was like "Why? Life is ugly anyway, why not at least see the world, and enjoy?" And I said "It's you who said life is ugly, not me".
If you think there's merit in it, I suggest you get into it. Hint: focus on dumb people with fat wallets.
Dumb people with fat wallets are a strategic asset. If you want to make religion win again, then you need them. You need absolutely all the resources you can muster. What did Blaise Pascal say? You must turn the tools of the devil against him.
Maybe some people just need to preach self loathing to themselves?
Sorry, but what's depression and self-loathing got to do with not being a gullible idiot? Have you both really drunk so much Kool-aid that you think Europeans are less happy than Americans. Denmark is the happiest place on earth and also one of the most Atheist. Some, if not most, of the best comedians are atheist (Hicks, Carlin, Gervais and etc). I probably crack, if anything, too many jokes around here. There is absolutely no connection with being religious and being happy, optimistic or funny. And it's actually quite funny that you both think there is.
Sorry, but what's depression and self-loathing got to do with not being a gullible idiot? Have you both really drunk so much Kool-aid that you think Europeans are less happy than Americans. Denmark is the happiest place on earth and also one of the most Atheist. Some, if not most, of the best comedians are atheist (Hicks, Carlin, Gervais and etc). I probably crack, if anything, too many jokes around here. There is absolutely no connection with being religious and being happy, optimistic or funny. And it's actually quite funny that you both think there is.
Baden.. something in this thread pushed your button. I really don't know what it is. I perceive that speculating out loud would be insulting.
You'll get yourself a giant gold star (especially big due to your having a Catholic background) if you can explain the cultural significance of Jesus' pessimism about the prospects of a rich man entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
I will say though, that in order to really gain maximum muscle recruitment, you need to be psychologically amped up, so that awareness moves further down the nervous system. Lots and lots of different emotions can achieve this.
Reply to Baden Your argument is purely ad hom. There are plenty of liberal ideologues who have their shows, write their books, and tour the world over making millions. Sure, they do it for money, but many are true believers as well.
I flip between him and South Park some days, both being free to watch, and neither putting me in fear that I'm going to be hypnotized into either's path of righteousness. There's value to be found in all sorts of places, from Osteen to even Bill Maher. I guess I'm just more open minded than most. Yep, that's me, but you continue to maintain the status quo, making sure that anyone of any religious mindset is purged from your home.
And, really, did you think that invoking European disapproval was going to be somehow persuasive? It's a tired argument anyway: America simple, Europe sophisticated. You guys got wiped out by a potato shortage. How smart can you be if you hinge your entire existence on a lowly potato?
There is absolutely no connection with being religious and being happy, optimistic or funny. And it's actually quite funny that you both think there is.
Have you both really drunk so much Kool-aid that you think Europeans are less happy than Americans. Denmark is the happiest place on earth and also one of the most Atheist.
I don't know how you have decided they're the happiest.
Yes, one of them was Robin Williams, look what happened to him.
Dare I ask what your point is here???
As for your "sources", they are two right-wing newspapers, one a recognized piece of trash that even the Trumps have sued for BS, and a jstor article I can't access. Thanks.
Reply to Baden I think you should start a consulting business for alibaba. Explain that if your name is Purvi, it's going to sound strange to an American. Use a nickname.
Reply to Baden You seem to be quite deluded about the benefits of religion, and instead buy into the gullibility and naivety message. It's a way to justify sadness and depression. It also seems religion makes people more successful.
Mental health associated with religiousness:
[i]"Ideas about the relationship between religiousness and mental health have changed over the past few centuries. During much of the 20th century, mental health professionals tended to deny the religious aspects of human life and often considered this dimension as either old-fashioned or pathological, predicting that it would disappear as mankind matured and developed. However, hundreds of epidemiological studies performed during the last decades have shown a different picture. Religiousness remains an important aspect of human life and it usually has a positive association with good mental health. Even though most studies have been conducted in the United States in Christian populations, in the last few years several of the main findings have been replicated in samples from different countries and religions. Two lines of investigation that need to be expanded are cross-cultural studies and application of these findings to clinical practice in different areas of the world.[3]
Considering that religiousness is frequent and has associations with mental health, it should be considered in research and clinical practice. The clinician who truly wishes to consider the bio-psycho-social aspects of a patient needs to assess, understand, and respect his/her religious beliefs, like any other psychosocial dimension. Increasing our knowledge of the religious aspect of human beings will increase our capacity to honor our duty as mental health providers and/or scientists in relieving suffering and helping people to live more fulfilling lives.[3]
Religious methods have often been used to treat the mentally ill. Initially, the priest was the most important counselor because he had the authority of religion along with psychological expertise. Faith and belief systems are very important constituents of psychological well-being and could be fruitfully utilized in psychotherapy. Their usage must be carefully evaluated. Hence, psychiatrists need to study religion vis-a-vis mental health more carefully as it is likely to increase the efficiency and acceptability of psychiatry to the masses. Finally, religion has a great influence in psychiatry including symptoms, phenomenology, and outcome.[1]"[/i]
From here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705681/
Your "sources" are two right wing newspapers, one a recognized piece of trash that even the Trump's have sued for BS, and a jstor article I can't access. Thanks.
Ha Ha Ha. Daily Mail and Telegraph are reputable sources. And they didn't do the surveys themselves:
"According to figures published as part of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) “well-being” research programme people, people who say they have no religious affiliation report lower levels of happiness, life satisfaction and self-worth than those who do."
Atheists tend to struggle more with depression and sadness than believers. More importantly, being "funny" is not correlated with being happy. Robin Williams was funny - but was he happy?
Reply to Agustino
Here's another one that puts Switzerland on top and Denmark third. Note that the top 10 happiest countries are among the most atheistic on the planet. Not one strongly religious country in there that I can see. The US comes in at 15. http://www.livescience.com/50614-happiest-countries-list.html
Here's another one that puts Switzerland on top and Denmark third. Note that the top 10 happiest countries are among the most atheistic on the planet. Not one strongly religious country in there that I can see. The US comes in at 15.
http://www.livescience.com/50614-happiest-countries-list.html
I don't care about countries, the question is about people. And religious people tend to be happier than the non-religious. For example, I doubt that religion or its absence is the reason why Denmark is considered to be the happiest country. There's economic factors that decide that. So we have to compare people, not countries.
How are we supposed to make the Church successful if not through the use of significant financial resources which are necessary to reach out to people and spread the message?
You seem to be quite deluded about the benefits of religion, and instead buy into the gullibility and naivety message
Nope. We were talking about televangelism not religion in general when it came to naivety and gullibility. My entry into the argument concerned that and debunking the obvious silly trope that atheists are a bunch of depressed Eeyore's in comparison to the religious. That's all.
Your study claims that being religious is not a mental health problem. I never said it was.
"According to figures published as part of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) “well-being” research programme people, people who say they have no religious affiliation report lower levels of happiness, life satisfaction and self-worth than those who do."
I don't care about countries, the question is about people. And religious people tend to be happier than the non-religious.
Of course you don't because it doesn't help your argument. But even if it were the case that the average religious person was slightly happier because of their religion it wouldn't justify Hanover's comments, which at this point I'm starting not to really care about anyway.
But even if it were the case that the average religious person was slightly happier because of their religion
It is true. Just as much as it is true that Denmark (as a country) is happier because of economic reasons.Quoting Agustino
For example, I doubt that religion or its absence is the reason why Denmark is considered to be the happiest country. There's economic factors that decide that. So we have to compare people, not countries.
My entry into the argument concerned that and debunking the obvious silly trope that atheists are a bunch of depressed Eeyore's in comparison to the religious. That's all.
It's not silly. It's true. Look at the facts. I gave you so many studies. And you keep crying correlation doesn't mean causation. No, it certainly doesn't, but it's a good enough indication when you lack reasons for doubting it.
And it's not rocket science. If you think an amazing future awaits you after death, you'll feel more confident and stronger in life. If you think death is the end - you won't have much to hope for, and without hope, you'll become weary and depressed.
Not to mention, what reason will you have to do great things for others and for the world? If your death is the end, then you don't really care what happens afterwards. But if it's not, then you want to give your best in this life. Atheists just cannot compete with the hope of religious people. Sure, whether this is false hope or real hope is an interesting question. But the fact is those who hope, will get better results and better lives here on Earth, just because they're more motivated.
And it's not rocket science. If you think an amazing future awaits you after death, you'll feel more confident and stronger in life. If you think death is the end - you won't have much to hope for, and without hope, you'll become weary and depressed.
Yes, that's why religious people never get depressed. Where's that country that sells more Prozac than anywhere on earth? Must be Denmark...
Anyway, better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. I think we can agree on that, right?
Yes, that's why religious people never get depressed.
No, I never said that. There's also some mental health problems associated with religious people (fear of hell and similar obsessions being one of them). I'm just saying that religious people score better in terms of mental health - on average - than atheists. And that's a fact.
Anyway, better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. I think we can agree on that, right?
Sure. I became hip to Osteen while eating lunch. There's this breakroom in a building devoted entirely to treating cancer. Sometimes it's a really depressing place. On Sundays (I work a lot of Sundays) a bunch of housekeeping people find their way to the breakroom. They're mostly latino and black, a few white people.
At first I was put off by his demeanor, but I was listening as I ate. At this point I've never come away from one of his lectures without thinking, "Damn... he's worth listening to."
If you don't like him, fine. If you don't like Americans, fine. To each his own.
Along with Hanover whose brain seems to have temporarily fallen out his earhole.
It's good to know it's temporary.
Here's the gist of what I said. There's this single guy who preaches an optimistic message and who's made a financial killing do it, but is actually inspiring at moments. He hasn't tapped into my moronic underbelly by appealing to Jesus, God, and all I hold so very dear so that I agree with everything he says. In fact, I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, that Mary was a virgin, or that God ever spoke to anyone. I'm not sure what will happen to my gentle soul when I die, but I doubt the whole heaven/hell thingamajig. The truth is that our religious beliefs are probably not terribly different, other than your being antagonistic to the whole enterprise, claiming religion is just what dumb fucks reference when they run out of things to say.
But let us assume that you and Comrade Marx are right that Osteen is just an opiate salesman. Have you not considered that there are times in all our lives when we need such relief and the motivation is something other than stupidity? It is laudable I suppose that you can find support on the always moving foundation of disbelief, but, yeah, I can't. I own that.
I never argued a correlation between happiness and religiosity, largely because happiness can't be well defined enough to statistically evaluate. I do think, though, that there is a pervasive negativity among the non-religious, and whether that amounts to unhappiness, I don't know. I also don't think you are quite as non-religious as you let on, but my read might be wrong, but it never has been in the past, so I doubt it.
Here's another one that puts Switzerland on top and Denmark third.
Denmark is happy because they have Benkei.
Anyway, your argument that atheistic countries tend to be happier than religious countries, therefore it is religiosity that determines happiness is nonsense. You can't just find any distinguishing factor between happy countries and not happy countries and declare that to be the controlling variable. In Europe they use the metric system and they're happier, so it must be that. They also have littler cars. Must be that. Their houses are much older. Must be that. They talk with funny accents. Must be that.
Minoans. Awesome. Have you ever been to the Penn Museum? I'm trying to schedule a trip up there in the next year or so. They also have some lectures on youtube.
I have heard of it, but haven't been able to go. Perhaps something to do, hmm...
And "up" there? Oh dear, do you live in the South? :’(
I became fascinated by the Gilgamesh epic.. trying to fathom the symbols. I grew up with a heavy focus on biblical stuff, so discovering the roots of Genesis.. the genesis of Genesis.. is fascinating to me.
Oh ya, that's true! I was raised Christian, so bible stories definitely put me in an antiquated setting, hehe.
And it's not rocket science. If you think an amazing future awaits you after death, you'll feel more confident and stronger in life. If you think death is the end - you won't have much to hope for, and without hope, you'll become weary and depressed.
Also, I think it it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that Osteen is both a charlatan and a giver of good advice, just as Hitler was an evil man also responsible for galvanizing a German economy back to health.
Every good thing can also be used for evil. What's your point?
If happy religious people can do evil, then what's the merit in some statistic that asserts the happiness of religious people as being important? I'm sure you could poll the happiness of Taliban members and get a super high, positive percentage based off of their religiousness being a factor, but is their "happiness" a good thing merely because they're not depressed and religious? Clearly not.
I'm sure you could poll the happiness of Taliban members and get a super high, positive percentage based off of their religiousness being a factor, but is their "happiness" a good thing merely because they're not depressed and religious?
First I doubt they'd be happy. But even if they were, then yes, their happiness is a good thing, what's not a good thing is their actions, clearly.
I was just making the point that religion is correlated with happiness. Most people want to be happy, they don't want to be miserable. I don't understand why you're bringing jihadists, etc. into this.
Reply to Heister Eggcart You're thinking Osteen is central to some cult of personality, otherwise you wouldn't suggest that he might have a dualistic potential as if that's a novel idea.
Everyone has exactly the same choices, I don't see why you have anymore choices than the next door person.
No, we only have two. One is to choose to be a rational, autonomous agent, to believe in yourself and take responsibility for your own decisions, while the other is choosing to not be a rational, autonomous agent and thus follow common beliefs by others and take no responsibility for your own decisions. To be, or not to be, that is the question.
I am not sure why you would think it nonsense that my suggestion one must learn to take responsibility for their own autonomous decision-making and hold themselves accountable as a moral agent, but think of it like this; when Adam is questioned by God for eating the apple, he immediately turns and points the blame to Eve saying it was because of her that he committed sin against the moral demands expected of him. It is a lack of autonomy that leads one to sin and when one lacks autonomy, they also lack the accountability as they do not have a sense of authenticity to reason with self-awareness and remorse. They lie to themselves.
And some people work very hard to ensure that others believe in their lies, like little children who are caught for a misdeed and are about to get into trouble deflect this possibility by making up lies to avoid being reprimanded. If I point out a moral flaw in someone, they often resort to slander or gossip to try and involve others that solidifies the assumption that something is wrong with me and therefore the flaw that I have exposed in them must also be wrong.
My own experience certainly bears this out. In my later years I believe I have understood much of 'Being and Time'. But baking remains an arcane mystery to me. And alas, I can't pass on your latest baking tip to the baker of the house, as she's just gone vegan.
Baking requires a calculated precision and to create something new by learning the behaviour of each ingredient under particular temperatures, or when mixed with other ingredients, and ensuring that the overall outcome is tasty can be tough, but also it is your state of mind. When your heart is not in it, you inevitably make mistakes to this very precision and the outcome is always a bad bake. It is so existential.
It is telling that you mentioned vegan; many years ago when I owned my own little bakeshop, making cakes for those with dietary requirements was the greatest challenge; try making a gluten-free soufflé! I was famed for my Turkish delight cupcake, by the way, which is entirely vegan. 8-)
One is to choose to be a rational, autonomous agent, to believe in yourself and take responsibility for your own decisions, while the other is choosing to not be a rational, autonomous agent and thus follow common beliefs by others and take no responsibility for your own decisions.
Common give me a break. There aren't just two black and white choices, there's a million possible choices in life. Say my wife asks me to shave my beard, and stop looking like a hobo, despite me liking to look like one. I'll probably shave it because it ain't such a big deal and it makes her happy - why not? Am I suddenly not rational, autonomous, bla bla bla if I don't? There's compromises that have to be made, and it's rational to make them. I like having a beard and looking like a hobo, but my wife doesn't and I also want to make my wife happy - so that's why I choose to shave it off.
I am not sure why you would think it nonsense that my suggestion one must learn to take responsibility for their own autonomous decision-making and hold themselves accountable as a moral agent
It's nonsense because it tells me jack shit about how I ought to behave and how I ought to make my choices. It doesn't help me distinguish at all whether to choose A, or B or any other possible choice. Be a rational autonomous agent - yeah sure.
Adam is question by God for eating the apple, he immediately turns and points the blame to Eve saying it was because of her that he committed sin against the moral demands expected of him. It is a lack of autonomy that leads one to sin and when one lacks autonomy, they also lack the accountability as they do not have a sense of authenticity to reason with self-awareness and remorse. They lie to themselves.
And Adam was right, that's why God cursed Eve more than he cursed Adam. But He did give Eve the greater possibility of redemption by making her offspring (Jesus Christ) crush the serpent under His heel (and redeem the whole of mankind).
And some people work very hard to ensure that others believe in their lies, like little children who are caught for a misdeed and are about to get into trouble deflect this possibility by making up lies to avoid being reprimanded.
This is nothing but pure strategy. Of course they do! It's not because they necessarily care what others believe, but it's because they want to get others to act a certain way. For example, when I got my first clients about 1 year ago, do you think I went up to them and told them "look I have no experience, I don't really know what I'm doing, but I think I can make a better website for your business" etc. Of course not! I wouldn't have gotten even 1 single project if I did that. I had to tell them I'm an expert who has worked on many projects before (and I had examples I made from scratch to prove it). That was the only way to get them to let me work. Then I inquired about their problems, listened, and went from there. I heard they were unhappy about manually doing their salaries (for example), so I created a database for them. I said I can get it done for you, tailor-made! I went, learned, and did it. Then I've done it for many more clients, who all turned out to have a similar problem. And so on. But without that initial foot in the door, it wouldn't have worked.
So what, you're now going to say "Agustino has no moral consciousness" etc. etc.? That's bull. We need to exaggerate sometimes to get things to work. That's part of the process. We believe in ourselves first, and then others do too. If I want to help my priest expand the presence of our local Church do you think I'm gonna tell him "uhh I have no experience running and organising such a community" - no, I'm going to tell him I'm capable to bring new people in, organise events for people, and get people truly engaged with the faith again - I'll tell him I'll boost Church attendance, and increase donations! Of course! Then he'll actually give me a shot, and I'll do my magic and improve things. And so forth. This is nothing but strategy - this is absolutely necessary to get things done in the world. What does the Bible say - be wise as serpents!
And Adam was right, that's why God cursed Eve more than he cursed Adam. But He did give Eve the greater possibility of redemption by making her offspring (Jesus Christ) crush the serpent under His heel
This is why we need the face-palm emoticon.
And it was the woman of the apocalypse that crushed the serpent under her heel.
Say my wife asks me to shave my beard, and stop looking like a hobo, despite me liking to look like one.
One minute you have a girlfriend, next minute you are married, another minute you are chaste, you sound like a teenager. Are you an engineer with business relationships and if so, why on earth do you spend so much of your time on here? Trying to obtain a level of experiential legitimacy does not make your arguments sound all of a sudden.
Get some sleep, man. I just woke up after seven hours of sleep and you're still on here.
It's not because they necessarily care what others believe, but it's because they want to get others to act a certain way.
Yes, but what they want in others is entirely narcissistic and devoid of moral accountability. They love only those people that agree with them, despite the fact that the foundation of their relationship with others is completely deceptive in order to maintain and strengthen this very narcissism. If I love someone who accepts my deceit rather than exposing my flaws, I love my narcissism more. This is what I meant about authenticity and being capable of loving.
And it was the woman of the apocalypse that crushed the serpent under her heel.
I'm not sure. I was reading God Behaving Badly and it explains that the traditional understanding of that passage is that it refers to Jesus crushing the head of the serpent by overcoming sin and death on the Cross.
One minute you have a girlfriend, next minute you are married, another minute you are chaste, you sound like a teenager.
I've never said I was married. It was a hypothetical example. Everyone here knows I'm not married, everyone knows I currently don't have a girlfriend. How come you're the only one who still has no clue after reading so many of my posts?! And it's quite simple really - not rocket science. "SAY my wife bla bla" What does the word "say" mean in that context? Pretend, Imagine, etc. Say I have a million dollars. I don't see why you're having such trouble with the English language. It's your native tongue after all. How come a bloody foreigner understands English better than a trained native-speaking lawyer?! :P
As of late, well not really as of late; but, more so than not, I've become obsessed with Putin. I mean, the guy is OG as us youngsters call 'cool' people.
How do you stay in power so long in a place like Russia? Also, his comments are so sophisticated.
Take for example his comment on 'patriotic (emphasis on these Russians being patriotic) Russians being the hackers behind the meddling of the US elections'. Obviously, he can't say it himself; but, this is just another way to pad yourself on the back from what came out of the meddlings of these 'patriotic Russians'. The guy is just playing the system magnanimously.
How do you stay in power so long in a place like Russia?
The more interesting question is how do you get in power, and how do you consolidate that power. Once you are in power, and you've consolidated the power, the way of staying in power is by using force, and doing a sufficiently good job that makes people like you. Doing the things your people want is of key importance. You can't stay in power for long if you totally suck for your country.
And you get in power by having access or gaining access to key information that can be used to blackmail key decision makers. The key is controlling secret services (which control the flow of information) OR the army (brute force). Once in power, you remove opposition and install your own support network (where key players are controlled via the possibility of blackmail). Then you promote and use other talented people to maintain your power. Generally you're aiming to scout for people who want to be high enough to have social status, are talented, but aren't highly ambitious - are more towards the lazy side.
Regardless, my initial post only pointed out what I do believe is true, and that is there is a great chasm between the religious and the non-religious as it relates to the optimism of the religious.
Your initial post actually pertained to Osteen in particular, and how his message was optimistic, not religious people in general. But, we can discuss that, if you'd like.
It does seem like the non-religious want to link their pessimism to a lack of naiveté, intellectualism, and sophistication and insist everything really is as bad as we can imagine. It's the philosophy of Eeyore. If it takes a fundamentalist Christian to shake you us out of our funk, so be it.
Perhaps our experiences differ, but I don't know that religious people are in general any more optimistic than the non-religious (though they may be happier, on average). Perhaps they're each optimistic or pessimistic about different things, or perhaps religious people (which we can here take to refer to Christians) have a rather warped view of the matter. A good chunk of American Christians believe that Jesus is returning in the next forty years, give or take. If I believed that my lord and savior was going to return in the near future, trailing clouds of glory, ready to preside over the End of Days, and to separate the sheep from the goats and rapture the faithful into Heaven, I might be optimistic, too (I myself am in fact guardedly optimistic, though for very different reasons).
But, the non-religious may concern themselves with matters such as global warming, threats to crop species, declining biodiversity, and myriad other things which may not worry those who believe that (1) God will provide, and (2) this is all going to end in the near future anyway, so what's the difference?
The religious right for the most part hitched its wagon to Donald Trump in the 2016 election, a candidate who ran one of the bleakest and most cynical presidential campaigns in modern history, decrying everything from free trade, to rampant crime in the inner cities, to the Chinese conspiracy of global warming, and who promised to "make America great again," (i.e. insinuating that it wasn't already great). That doesn't seem like optimism in my book.
A certain brand of Christians in this country are also consumed with what they view as the moral decay of society, as exemplified in the decline of school prayer, the legalization of abortion, the rise of gay rights, and other satanic developments. They see a "War on Christmas," and believe that Christians (in the United States) are "persecuted" for practicing their faith. Again, this doesn't seem optimistic.
Contrast that message with writers such as the aforementioned Matt Ridley in The Rational Optimist which touts the power of free ideas in a free market to solve the world's major problems (from energy to the food supply, to disease), or that of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature, which charts a decline in violence in the modern era. Neither Pinker or Ridley are religious believers, you will note.
The religious right for the most part hitched its wagon to Donald Trump in the 2016 election, a candidate who ran one of the bleakest and cynical presidential campaigns in modern history, decrying everything from free trade, to rampant crime in the inner cities, to the Chinese conspiracy of global warming, and who promised to "make America great again," (i.e. insinuating that it wasn't already great). That doesn't seem like optimism in my book.
A certain brand of Christians in this country are also consumed with what they view as the moral decay of society, as exemplified in the decline of school prayer, the legalization of abortion, the rise of gay rights, and other satanic developments. They see a "War on Christmas," and believe that Christians (in the United States) are "persecuted" for practicing their faith. Again, this doesn't seem optimistic.
This IS optimistic. Yes, the present is gloomy, but the future is golden. That's how it is for the religious. Present circumstances matter less than future ones. If you have hope, you're happy and motivated. Whereas for the atheists - their present is golden, but their future is pitch black - they have no future.
Contrast that message with writers such as the aforementioned Matt Ridley in The Rational Optimist which touts the power of free ideas in a free market to solve the world's major problems (from energy to the food supply, to disease), or that of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature, which charts a decline in violence in the modern era. Neither Pinker or Ridley are religious believers, you will note.
I don't give a damn about this empty and vacuous optimism. That's not even optimism - it's laziness and saying "Eh. Things are good. No need to work! That's it, all we need to do is support the status quo. We can kick back and just enjoy our great civilisation" That's the root of decay.
Optimism is an attitude about the future, not about the present. If I'm optimistic I'm hopeful for the future. To be hopeful for the future means to be pessimistic about the present, among other things.
Decline in violence? Sure, we just passed through WWI and WWII less than 100 years ago - arguably the most bloody and violent conflict in history - and some fools tell us there's a decline in violence, because statistically, comparing the Earth's population to the number of violent deaths, etc. etc. give me a break. That's BS. Percentages are deceitful. The greater the absolute values become (total population number) the smaller the percentage points become (less % die in a violent way). This doesn't mean anything though. Just the effect of scale.
Also, I don't feel one single iota happier knowing that free market will solve the world's energy problems. What the hell does that even mean?! The free market >:O >:O as if this free market was anything but me and you. If me and you don't solve the world's energy problems, the free market will do jack shit for us.
OPTIMISM =/ *Insert Abstract Idea here* will take care of you
Stupid and Lazy Bob goes to work for corporate America - "Hey! We're doing well man, things are going great, the free market gives so much to us, better healthcare, we can cure so many diseases that we couldn't cure 100 years ago, our technology is growing so quickly and solving our problems, ain't that great now mate?"
And of course Bob ain't doing jack shit for the world - just putting in more dough in the pockets of rich Wall Street Bankers. Why? Because he has an excuse - the free market's doing all the work for him!
ISIS is to Islam as the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity. Yes, they might be of those religions, but to refer to Islam ironically as the religion of peace because of one organisation (or four if we include Boko Haram, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda) is like referring to Christianity ironically as the religion of tolerance because of one organisation (or more if we include the Westboro Baptist Church, Hutaree, and any others).
ISIS is to Islam as the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity. Yes, they might be of those denominations, but to refer to Islam ironically as the religion of peace because of one organisation (or four if we include Boko Haram, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda) is like referring to Christianity as the religion of tolerance because of one organisation (or more if we include the Westboro Baptist Church, Hutaree, and any others).
You forgot Al Shabaab. And the PLO. And the machete-wielding mobs of Bangladesh. And the Saudi religious police. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And Abu Sayyaf. And Ansar al-Shari'a. And...
And for the record, I don't believe that Christianity has had a history of tolerance, either. It was essentially forced to tolerate particular social developments by the forces of modernity, forces which have passed many Muslim-majority nations by.
Yes, and I also forgot about all the violent groups of other religions, and of no religion.
There are monsters of every variety. You should attack them, not some expansive belief system of which the violent are a very small minority.
Yes, there are monsters of every variety. Some groups have a higher proportion of monsters, than others, however. Islam has a higher proportion of radicals in the modern era than does, say, Unitarianism or Mormonism, and denying that fact in the name of some ecumenical whitewashing doesn't make the problem go away. The Westboro Baptist Church, as odious as they are, restricts its activities to protesting, unlike radical Islamists.
Islam has a higher proportion of radicals in the modern era than does, say, Unitarianism or Mormonism, and denying that fact in the name of some ecumenical whitewashing doesn't make the problem go away.
I'm not denying that fact. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to then blame Islam. Men make up a far higher proportion of rapists than women. Do we then hold having an X and a Y chromosome to blame? Do we start cracking down on anyone with sexual desire? It would be ridiculous, as is all this Islamophobia.
Blame ISIS, blame Al-Qaeda, blame the Ku Klux Klan, blame the National Liberation Army, blame the IRA, blame the Shining Path, blame the drug cartels, blame the Mafia, blame the rapists. But don't blame Islam or Christianity or Mexicans or men.
I'm not denying that fact. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to then blame Islam. Men make up a far higher proportion of rapists than women. Do we then hold having an X and a Y chromosome to blame? Do we start cracking down on anyone with sexual desire? It would be ridiculous, as is all this Islamophobia.
Blame ISIS, blame Al-Qaeda, blame the Ku Klux Klan, blame the National Liberation Army, blame the IRA, blame the Shining Path, blame the drug cartels, blame the Mafia, blame the rapists. But don't blame Islam or Christianity or Mexicans or men.
Men are more violent than women, and people rationally fear men more than they do women (just as they rationally fear young men to a greater degree than they fear elderly men). Testosterone, the masculinizing hormone, is implicated in certain adverse behavioral outcomes (e.g. increased aggression). Do Muslims secrete a particular hormone making them more prone to violence than Jains or Buddhists?
I can blame the institutional practices and behavior of certain practitioners of Catholicism in, for instance, the church abuse scandal. I can also say that the Catholic church had widespread, systemic issues going almost right to the top of the organization in fomenting this problem and its failure to deal with it. Does that make me "Catholic-phobic?"
If Islam is indeed a religion of peace, then it prompts the question as to why it produces such a relatively high proportion of violent radicals, and why it feels the need to violently squelch dissent, apostasy, and what it perceives to be blasphemy. Are its practitioners simply obtuse in interpreting their holy books to a larger degree than most other religions? I would find that hard to believe, as many young Muslims' education seems to consist of almost nothing but reading the Koran.
I can blame the institutional practices and behavior of certain practitioners of Catholicism in, for instance, the church abuse scandal. I can also say that the Catholic church had widespread, systemic issues going almost right to the top of the organization in fomenting this problem and its failure to deal with it. Does that make me "Catholic-phobic?"
Notice that your issue is with the Catholic Church, not with Christianity. And so by take same token, your issue should be with ISIS and Al-Qaeda and so on, not with Islam.
If Islam is indeed a religion of peace, then it prompts the question as to why it produces such a relatively high proportion of violent radicals, and why it feels the need to violently squelch dissent, apostasy, and what it perceives to be blasphemy. Are its practitioners simply obtuse in interpreting their holy books to a larger degree than most other religions? I would find that hard to believe, as many young Muslims' education seems to consist of almost nothing but reading the Koran.
We had the same issues in Christian societies of the past. The issue wasn't with Christianity but with the wider social context. Look at the places where these groups originate from.
You just have to look at the fact that the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists to see that the Islamic faith isn't the problem, just as you just have look at the fact that the vast majority of men aren't rapists to see that being a man isn't the problem.
Notice that your issue is with the Catholic Church, not with Christianity. And so by take same token, your issue should be with ISIS and Al-Qaeda and so on, not with Islam.
ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, etc, are drawn from the ranks of Sunni or Shiite Muslims. They are not a particular, separate denomination of Islam. And I don't argue that all Christian denominations are equally odious: they aren't. I hold Pentecostals as a group in much lower regard than I hold, say, Episcopalians or Presbyterians.
We had the same issues in Christian societies of the past. The issue wasn't with Christianity but with the wider social context. Look at the places where these groups originate from.
Yes, I am an no defender of the history of Christianity. But we're talking about the modern world.
You just have to look at the fact that the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists to see that the Islamic faith isn't the problem, just as you just have look at the fact that the vast majority of men aren't rapists to see that being a man isn't the problem.
Again, I've never said that the vast majority of Muslims are terrorists. I said that Islam produces violent radicals to a greater degree than virtually any other religion in the modern world.
Would you be willing to say that, because the vast majority of American police officers do not conduct their job duties in a racist or racially discriminatory manner, that American law enforcement writ large therefore does not have a problem with its treatment of black citizens of the United States?
Again, I've never said that the vast majority of Muslims are terrorists. I said that Islam produces violent radicals to a greater degree than virtually any other religion in the modern world.
Maybe, but it's striking that they don't seem to have any clear agenda in the way Mormon terrorists did. Radicalized youths.... who knows why they really do it?
Maybe, but it's striking that they don't seem to have any clear agenda in the way Mormon terrorists did. Radicalized youths.... who knows why they really do it?
Ecologist and author E.O. Wilson once called human beings "absurdly easy to indoctrinate" (or something close to that). I think people sometimes underestimate how powerful a drive a set of beliefs can be, especially for those who are susceptible to being swayed by them, due to youth, inexperience, social desperation, lack of education, or what have you.
The fact that a significant number of radical Muslims seem willing to not only risk death for their cause, but to willingly engage in operations in which their violent death is part of the plan is rather striking, and should be disquieting to those who claim that such radicals don't "really" believe in what they profess to believe.
Reply to Arkady The ant dude! It's not clear to me what any particular Islamist terrorist believes. Is it apocalypticism? I don't spend any time on Islamist web sites. Maybe I can find a book on it.
It's not clear to me what any particular Islamist terrorist believes. Is it apocalypticism? I don't spend any time on Islamist web sites. Maybe I can find a book on it.
Yea, I once said that I'm sometimes curious as to what transpires on websites which recruit jihadists, and that I'm also curious as to what goes on on pedophile websites, the dark web, and other assorted disreputable areas of the internet. However, that's just not something I want a record of in my web browsing history.
Maybe, but it's striking that they don't seem to have any clear agenda in the way Mormon terrorists did. Radicalized youths.... who knows why they really do it?
It is striking that no demands are made. In the previous terrorist wave in the UK, which was by Provisional IRA fanatics, there was at least a known agenda, and some kind of a policy (not always successfully carried out) of issuing warnings beforehand. The IRA were asking something of the drunks in a Guildford bar when they blew them up. This does somehow make a difference, although it makes the approach no less appalling.
The issue wasn't with Christianity but with the wider social context. Look at the places where these groups originate from.
You just have to look at the fact that the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists to see that the Islamic faith isn't the problem,
Whether Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever it is, there is (there has to be) a connection between what people believe and how they behave. We don't have any difficulty attributing behavior we like to particular beliefs; our accounting should work both ways.
New Testament Christianity wasn't the same as medieval Christianity, but it was Medieval Christianity that Medieval people believed in. The Islam of today may or may not be responsible for more violent and/or extremist behavior than it was in the past, but the Islam of today is what we are dealing with.
What we should avoid saying is "all Moslems are alike." Clearly that isn't true. We can say that this or that Moslem group is narrowly, rigidly conservative; or that this or that Moslem group is quite flexible and inclusive. Or we can say that these (listed) Moslem clerics preach violence and they have a following, or that these (listed) Moslem clerics preach flexible acceptance of others' beliefs and they have a following.
I just don't buy the idea that there is no relationship between a faith and the behavior it supports/produces, whether that be Christianity or Islam, or any other belief system.
What we should avoid saying is "all Moslems are alike." Clearly that isn't true. We can say that this or that Moslem group is narrowly, rigidly conservative; or that this or that Moslem group is quite flexible and inclusive. Or we can say that these (listed) Moslem clerics preach violence and they have a following, or that these (listed) Moslem clerics preach flexible acceptance of others' beliefs and they have a following.
Some apologists for radical Islam (and you are clearly not one) decry what they believe to be the apparent homogenization of Muslims by its critics, critics who toss off claims about "the Muslim world," as if all of the Muslim-majority countries (and communities of Muslims in non-Muslim-majority countries) were part of one big pot of stew which tastes the same throughout.
While it's true that we should not let the out-group homogeneity bias hold sway in our judgments of "the other," I don't think that the disparate cultures, histories, and practices of different communities of Muslims worldwide serves as the rebuttal which the apologists believe that it does. Indeed, I think that it implies the completely opposite conclusion.
When looking for a cause of a phenomenon found in myriad places and times, one looks for pertinent commonalities among occurences of this phenomenon. That is, which similarities did the occurences share? If we see that religiously-motivated violence is especially prevalent in nations and cultures as disparate as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Somalia, nations spread across multiple continents, borne of different histories, with different ethnic demographics, etc, it is those very differences which implicate Islam in that violence, as the differences among them cannot be part of the common cause.
I think Paul Wolfowitz thought Al Qaeda (term coined by the FBI, recall) wanted freedom from corrupt monarchies. He thought they were angry at the US for standing behind those monarchies. To some extent, the invasion of Iraq was meant to give the terrorists what they wanted.
Turns out... that was wrong. I'm not sure the people who blew up the World Trade Center wanted anything at all (except the blaze of glory?)
When looking for a cause of a phenomenon found in myriad places and times, one looks for pertinent commonalities among occurences of this phenomenon. That is, which similarities did the occurences share? If we see that religiously-motivated violence is especially prevalent in nations and cultures as disparate as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Somalia, nations spread across multiple continents, borne of different histories, with different ethnic demographics, etc, it is those very differences which implicate Islam in that violence, as the differences among them cannot be part of the common cause.
No, I'm not an apologist for Islam; Islam is one of several religions I don't much like. But, whether we like it or loathe it, we should at least be articulate about it's nature -- as you are in the quoted paragraph here.
Some people want to put religion in the "above reproach" column. Like, sacred beliefs just can't be criticized. Of course they can be criticized--they should, they can, they shall, they must be criticized. Sometimes the same, sometimes other people want to put "oppressed races" in that column too: Blacks are oppressed and therefore black culture just can't be criticized. White people aren't oppressed (we're too busy always oppressing everyone everywhere) so we can be criticized freely--as we should be--but along with everybody else. To be Human is to be flawed, and flaws that we can do something about should be brought forward.
Pick a group, any group--blacks, gays, women, moslems, straight white men, cat owners, people who carefully recycle--whoever, and they will be found flawed--just not all flawed in the exact same way.
Pick a group, any group--blacks, gays, women, moslems, straight white men, cat owners, people who carefully recycle--whoever, and they will be found flawed--just not all flawed in the exact same way.
What I see on both sides of squabbles over Islam is way too much arm-chairing. "My principles force me to conclude x."
And I think Reply to Arkady was just engaging in that. I'd love less of a logical argument about why we should pin certain acts of violence on Islam itself and some empirical evidence.
Show the link between the recent bloodshed in London and any version of Islam from 700AD onward. Showing that link requires some justified true belief about reasoning behind the attack. What was it? What Islamic principle is that reason in line with?
Otherwise just join the vast majority of us and admit that you don't know.
Reply to Mongrel
Ahh, the hypocrisy. As if the West was innocent and as civilized as we say we are.
I have been reading this around here and there, that the only thing that will save this administration (Trump et al.) is war.
So, now we wait and see if a pretext can be found to start this war, against the uncivilized and pagan world of the Muslims, or North Korean leaders, or Iranians, or who knows what enemies can be found to battle against next?
Otherwise just join the vast majority of us and admit that you don't know.
The attackers are dead, so in this case, I doubt we'll learn much more about their motivations, at least not from them directly. Perhaps they left behind writings or communications with others which might shed more light upon their thinking, but their motives are particularly clear: to kill as many people as possible. Initial reports said that at least one of the attackers was shouting "Allah akbar" as he set about his killing spree. The fact that we don't have a granular understanding of the beliefs and desires of each and every member of, for instance, ISIS, doesn't preclude our knowing that they are motivated by radical Islamic beliefs.
I'm sorry if you find this "arm-chairing," but the empirical evidence is there in news story after news story about radical Islamists killing and maiming throughout the globe (including plenty of killing of other Muslims). Perhaps a bit of logical clarity is called for here?
Ahh, the hypocrisy. As if the West was innocent and as civilized as we say we are.
A tu quoque fallacy and a non-sequitur wrapped into one. Criticizing radical Islam doesn't imply that the critic believes Western civilization to be blameless in all things, nor does the sins of Western civilization in any way justify Islamic terrorism.
Criticizing radical Islam doesn't imply that the critic believes Western civilization to be blameless in all things, nor does the sins of Western civilization in any way justify Islamic terrorism.
Now, there's your big fat fallacy if there ever was one. An overgeneralization of epic proportions as well as a fallacy of composition and well, a lot more I should add.
Now, there's your big fat fallacy if there ever was one. An overgeneralization of epic proportions.
How so? You have to put some meat on these bones if you want to be taken seriously. The usual carping about "the West, Trump, blah blah blah" isn't going to cut it.
Reply to Arkady
We obviously don't call an act of terror by white Christian supremacists as 'radical Christianity/Christians'; but, are willing so promptly to justify our derogatory claim about Islam by the acts of single few in proportion to the great many peaceful, friendly, and docile Muslims. Why is that?
We obviously don't call an act of terror by white Christian supremacists as 'radical Christianity/Christians'; but, are willing so promptly to justify our derogatory claim about Islam by the acts of single few in proportion to the great many peaceful, friendly, and docile Muslims. Why is that?
Contrary to your "obvious" claim, I do think that groups such as the KKK were at least partially motivated by their religious extremism, as they were motivated by not only racial animus towards blacks, but by religious/theological animus towards Catholics and other "false Christians." But to say that, in the year 2017, the KKK and Islamic radicals each pose an equivalent threat is a false equivalency.
Reply to Question Because intelligence sources place the total percentage of radical muslims at 15-20%, a small percentage, but in actual numbers, a population greater than all the US ideologically in favor of eradicating Western civilization.
I might be talking out of my ass; but, Nazi Germany waged their own holy war against inferior infidels in the name of Christianity/Christ. You don't see that in history books nowadays; but, I think is very true.
Now, let us assume that it is true despite what the current representative of Catholic Christians might say. Then, that would make Christianity and the people who followed through with the ethnic cleansing and genocide against the heretics during WWII as the religion with the most blood on its hands.
I don't see discussions about this despite there being quite a lot of evidence in support of my claims.
Does anyone else see the fallacy I am committing in the above? I hope so!
The fact that we don't have a granular understanding of the beliefs and desires of each and every member of, for instance, ISIS, doesn't preclude our knowing that they are motivated by radical Islamic beliefs.
Bolding mine. I'm assuming you're backing down from the former statement?
Forget granular. Tell me about the very broad agenda of radical Islam.
I might be talking out of my ass; but, Nazi Germany waged their own holy war against inferior infidels in the name of Christianity. You don't see that in history books nowadays; but, I think is very true.
Nazis killed those who it deemed to be inferior, to be sure, but I don't think that their being "infidels" have anything to do with it. Are you suggesting that the Nazis' primary motivation stemmed from Christian extremism?
You said "Islam" dude. And then you changed it to:
I'm assuming you're backing down from the former statement?
Forget granular. Tell me about the very broad agenda of radical Islam.
I'm afraid I don't follow your question. I've repeated over and over again that I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists.
As for the agenda of radical Islam, the stated goals of ISIS is to establish a new Islamic caliphate, and, if the treatment of those under their control thus far is any indication, said caliphate would be ruled by an extremely severe and violent form of Sharia. Other radical Muslims' goals are to squelch any perceived slight to their religion, be it mockery from a cartoon or blasphemy or apostasy by a co-religionist.
As for the agenda of radical Islam, the stated goals of ISIS is to establish a new Islamic caliphate
I think this is ground zero of the confusion. Some authors use "Islamism" to refer to the goal of creating an Islamic state. Pakistan is a product of Islamism. Pakistan is not a terrorist organization.
Others use "Islamism" to refer to terrorists.
It sickens me to have to agree with Michael, but the ambiguity in the use of this term allows a fair portion of contemporary strife to be identified as Islam. See what I mean?
Nazis were motivated by many bizarre and odious beliefs, including exhortations of "blood and soil," nationalism, and xenophobic hatred and war-mongering, but nothing I've ever seen or read about WW2 indicates that the Nazi party or the German military was motivated primarily by religion, Christianity or otherwise. (In any event WW2 ended in 1945, and we are here speaking of 2017.)
A good follow up question to the lady in the debate is something of the sort:
Has the number went up since 2001 or gone down, and what was that number throughout history, and what factors contribute to it changing? Based on the answer to that complex question we can assess the claim as to whether Islam is a religion of violence or not, as many do when using 'radical' and 'Islam' in one sentence.
If we're as committed to living in a peaceful and harmonious world, then that question is quite important, don't you think?
Well, I'm quite sure Nazi Germany thought of itself as the continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, which they admired greatly in their pictorial depiction of Hitler being a messiah to the German people.
Nazi artwork and symbolism are rife with Christian symbolism and elements.
So you just misspoke when it seemed your target was Islam as opposed to radical Islam?
All radical Muslims are Muslims; it doesn't follow that all Muslims are radical, and I've never said otherwise.
While I may at times "target" Islam as a whole (as I would any other religion), I don't regard all Muslims as terrorists, a point which I've made repeatedly.
I think this is ground zero of the confusion. Some authors use "Islamism" to refer to the goal of creating an Islamic state. Pakistan is a product of Islamism. Pakistan is not a terrorist organization.
Others use "Islamism" to refer to terrorists.
It sickens me to have to agree with Michael, but the ambiguity in the use of this term allows a fair portion of contemporary strife to be identified as Islam. See what I mean?
I am familiar with the term "Islamism" as referring to an aggressive and violent form of Islam, often with political, as well as religious aims.
Well, I'm quite sure Nazi Germany thought of itself as the continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, which they admired greatly in their pictorial depiction of Hitler being a messiah to the German people.
Nazi artwork and symbolism is rife with Christian elements.
I must admit that I'm not a student of Nazi artwork (though I'm not sure how Hitler being depicted as the Messiah is overtly Christian; indeed, Christians believe in but one Messiah, and Jews in none - yet), but, again, if it is your contention that the Nazi party (and/or German military) was on a mission of Christian extremism, I think that you have a rather steep evidential hill to climb.
That's not my point here. My point is that a few people (Hitler, radical Muslims, etc.) ought not and should not hijack a religion based on the acts of a few madmen.
We really should be above this point already, based on history. That we don't, shows that peace and harmony are not on everyone's agenda.
All radical Muslims are Muslims; it doesn't follow that all Muslims are radical, and I've never said otherwise.
While I may at times "target" Islam as a whole (as I would any other religion), I don't regard all Muslims as terrorists, a point which I've made repeatedly.
OK. Hold up. I thought this was an easy point to get past.. you misspoke.. move on. But you're doubling down on this. Only insane people think all Muslims are terrorists. That's not a thing.
Even George Dumbshit Bush knew better than to appear to being attacking Islam itself. It's a very, very, very, VERY, important distinction to be clear about, to the tune of insidious bigotry.
That's not my point here. My point is that a few people (Hitler, radical Muslims, etc.) ought not and should not hijack a religion based on the acts of a few madmen.
OK. Hold up. I thought this was an easy point to get past.. you misspoke.. move on. But you're doubling down on this. Only insane people think all Muslims are terrorists. That's not a thing.
Even George Dumbshit Bush knew better than to appear to being attacking Islam itself. It's a very, very, very, VERY, important distinction to be clear about, to the tune of insidious bigotry.
Ok. I feel that I am rapidly losing the thread of your point. Let me summarize what I've said.
(1) Islam (yes, the entirety of Islam, that is, the religion as a whole) produces a greater percentage of violent radicals in the modern age than virtually any other major religion.
(2) Even given (1), it does not follow that most (or even a significant percentage) of Muslims are terrorists.
(3) The fact that apparently religiously-motivated violence occurs across Muslim-majority countries with vastly different cultures and histories does not exculpate the role of Islam (radical or otherwise) in fomenting this violence. On the contrary, it points to Islam as a causative factor.
You may agree or disagree with any of this, but I've not "misspoken": this is exactly what I believe.
So then, the issue boils down to a couple of things.
1. Are we ignorant, when condemning a religion by the actions of a few twisted men?
2. Is there any ulterior motive in condemning a religion by the actions of the few if not due to ignorance?
3. Are we really as educated and civilized as we think we are?
1. Are we ignorant, when condemning a religion by the actions of a few twisted men?
It would be ignorant to say that all practitioners of said religion are equally violent or loathsome, but it would not be ignorant to say that that religion has a unique problem with producing violent radicals when it in fact does have such a problem.
2. Is there any ulterior motive in condemning a religion by the actions of the few if not due to ignorance?
Do you have an ulterior motive for constantly searching for ulterior motives in others? I think this bears some looking into.
3. Are we really as educated and civilized as we think we are?
I'm actually more educated and civilized than I believe myself to be, strangely enough.
To my critics, allow me to illustrate my point from what is perhaps another political perspective, by reiterating a question which I asked earlier:
Is it the case that, because the vast majority of American police officers do not conduct their job duties in a racist or racially discriminatory manner, that American law enforcement writ large therefore does not have a problem with its treatment of black citizens of the United States?
Ok. I feel that I am rapidly losing the thread of your point. Let me summarize what I've said.
My point is that by connecting the violent actions of a radicalized youth to Islam, you aren't saying much.
You admit that you don't really understand the thought processes of such a youth: is the violent motive really an expression of faith or is it disgust with aspects of Western society that in the process of trying to find expression stumble upon radical Islam?
We'll leave the destination of the connection aside. All you gave me for the agenda of radical Islam was the same agenda that generated Pakistan, which is not a terrorist organization.
1) Islam (yes, the entirety of Islam, that is, the religion as a whole) produces a greater percentage of violent radicals in the modern age than virtually any other major religion.
The modern age? Late modern starts in the 1700's. Is that what you mean?
Islam is a 1300 year old religion. What do you mean by the entirety of Islam?
The fact that apparently religiously-motivated violence occurs across Muslim-majority countries with vastly different cultures and histories does not exculpate the role of Islam (radical or otherwise) in fomenting this violence. On the contrary, it points to Islam as a causative factor.
Does it? My experience with humanity is that aggression, disappointment, fear, etc. go looking for legitimate means of expression. Those emotions will be subsumed by any lightning rod in the environment. Can Islam function as such a rod? Yes, it can. If that's your point, I agree.
I just don't like the language that spills easily into intolerance and bigotry.
My point is that by connecting the violent actions of a radicalized youth to Islam, you aren't saying much.
Really? That seems to be the crux of the matter, i.e. whether said actions are connected to Islam.
You admit that you don't really understand the thought processes of such a youth: is the violent motive really an expression of faith or is it disgust with aspects of Western society that in the process of trying to find expression stumble upon radical Islam?
What I said is that one doesn't need a granular understanding of each and every member of ISIS to know that they are motivated by radical Islamist beliefs. Not knowing the entirety of a person's motivations for doing X doesn't imply that one knows nothing of the person's motivations for doing X.
If radical Islam gives voice to those who are otherwise disgusted by Western society, why is it disproportionately Muslims who violently act out against it, as opposed to other groups who might share that disgust? Perhaps because Islam is a bastion of illiberal beliefs?
We'll leave the destination of the connection aside. All you gave me for the agenda of radical Islam was the same agenda that generated Pakistan, which is not a terrorist organization.
No, it just harbors terrorists. What's your point? Someone is not a terrorist if their ultimate goal is a Muslim theocratic state?
The modern age? Late modern starts in the 1700's. Is that what you mean?
Apologies for not defining my terms sufficiently. I am here speaking of the late 20th century-present.
Islam is a 1300 year old religion. What do you mean by the entirety of Islam?
I mean Islam as a religion, a community of believers.
Does it? My experience with humanity is that aggression, disappointment, fear, etc. go looking for legitimate means of expression. Those emotions will be subsumed by any lightning rod in the environment. Can Islam function as such a rod? Yes, it can. If that's your point, I agree.
It seems that Islam is a more effective lightning rod than some other religions. I wonder why that is?
I just don't like the language that spills easily into intolerance and bigotry.
Reply to unenlightened
Ah, of course: Islamic terrorism is a result of the West's meddling, foreign policy, and horrid respect for human rights. I'm glad you reminded me. Problem solved, folks: Islam is just peachy.
Everything you need to know about this conspiratorial screed can be found here:
To the Americans and British, Gadaffi's true crime was his iconoclastic independence and his plan to abandon the petrodollar, a pillar of American imperial power. He had audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would have happened, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships".
That's right: Gadaffi was awful because he was too independent. Damn the man's accursed individualistic streak!
Yes, one of them was Robin Williams, look what happened to him.
No he wasn't. He was as shit as Jim Carey, Steve Martin, Rick Mayall in things like Bottom and Drop Dead Fred, Rowen Atkinson in things like Mr. Bean. I suppose these guys are (or were) really good at that kind of crap comedy aimed at children, idiots and people with a taste ranging from terrible to mediocre. And Peter Kay has to feature prominently on any list of worst comedians. And Eddie Murphy. And Lenny Henry. And Omid Djalili.
What I said is that one doesn't need a granular understanding of each and every member of ISIS to know that they are motivated by radical Islamist beliefs.
ISIS is a Johnny-come-lately that PBS's Frontline says is a direct result of GW Bush's ill advised allegiance to Maliki. Apparently numerous military personnel tried to explain to Bush that Maliki was going to create a disaster in Iraq. ISIS was the disaster.
Back in the day, we called extremist Islam Al Qaeda. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there was all sorts of confidence in the US government that the goals of this diverse collection of angry Muslims was understood. It wasn't understood.... at all.
We know that Bin Laden somehow got the idea that he was God's favorite son while fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. He doesn't appear to have understood that God didn't defeat the Russians there. The US did. The US was sneaky about it.
Yes, there's a connection to Islam. That alone isn't saying much.
There's a causal connection, which is saying quite a bit. The fact is, these bad actors aren't merely radicals who happen to be Muslim: they're radical Muslims.
ISIS is a Johnny-come-lately that PBS's Frontline says is a direct result of GW Bush's ill advised allegiance to Maliki. Apparently numerous military personnel tried to explain to Bush that Maliki was going to create a disaster in Iraq. ISIS was the disaster.
ISIS doesn't exhaust the universe of Islamist violence. And this is just another attempt to foist blame onto the West. Islam has to own the monsters it creates. Take some responsibility.
Back in the day, we called extremist Islam Al Qaeda. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there was all sorts of confidence in the US government that the goals of this diverse collection of angry Muslims was understood. It wasn't understood.... at all.
We know that Bin Laden somehow got the idea that he was God's favorite son while fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. He doesn't appear to have understood that God didn't defeat the Russians there. The US did. The US was sneaky about it.
What does this have to do with the fact that Al Qaeda is a radical Muslim organization?
You told me radical Islam's agenda is to create a Muslim state.
ISIS's is. The radical Muslims who kill bloggers they don't like are avenging perceived slights to their religion. The radical Muslims who attempt to murder girls for going to school are trying to enforce a violent patriarchy. The radical Muslims who commit honor killings against their daughters are trying to avenge a perceived slight to their honor. The Islamic theocrats who hang homosexuals from cranes are violently enforcing their strict sexual mores.
Good question. Does the view from your armchair help out with answering that?
Then I'm on your side 100%.. although I will maintain that 25% of the world's Jews are assholes.
I don't even know what to say to these. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they're failed attempts at humor.
Could you do me the courtesy of answering my question about police practices above?
Come to think of it, one of the worst comedies I think I've ever seen was quite recent, and it was Seinfeld. What a steaming pile of shit that was. But I guess steaming piles of shit can be really popular.
It's interesting, because Curb Your Enthusiasm is much, much better, and not a steaming pile of shit like Seinfeld.
Reply to Arkady I couldn't get that far as I found the first couple of episodes unbearably bad. The worst part is the lame observational stand-up comedy at the end.
There's a causal connection, which is saying quite a bit. The fact is, these bad actors aren't merely radicals who happen to be Muslim: they're radical Muslims.
Radical Islam is associated with violence. News flash.
ISIS doesn't exhaust the universe of Islamist violence. And this is just another attempt to foist blame onto the West. Islam has to own the monsters it creates. Take some responsibility.
Yeeaah... I know that ISIS is recent flash in the pan. You are the one who pointed to ISIS to explain to me what radical Islam is. And no, I'm not trying to foist any blame. Watch the Frontline documentaries about ISIS (there are at least 2 of them).
LOL. Where did you think ISIS came from? Some scripture in the Koran?
What does this have to do with the fact that Al Qaeda is a radical Muslim organization?
You see, this is where your armchair is going to let you down. Al Qaeda is a termed coined by the FBI. It's not a Muslim organization... radical or otherwise.
I don't even know what to say to these. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they're failed attempts at humor.
Could you do me the courtesy of answering my question about police practices above?
I actually am on your side. You're against intolerance and bigotry. I believe that.
I didn't read your thing about police practices. I'd like to, though.
The thing about 25% of the Jews is a personal joke about my being 25% German. I find it endlessly funny. I'm not too surprised that nobody else thinks it is.
Radical Islam is associated with violence. News flash.
Is it also a news flash that Islam produces a disproportionate number of violent radicals relative to other major world religions in the modern world?
Yeaah... I know that ISIS is recent flash in the pan. You are the one who pointed to ISIS to explain to me what radical Islam is. And no, I'm not trying to foist any blame. Watch the Frontline documentaries about ISIS (there are at least 2 of them).
LOL. Where did you think ISIS came from? Some scripture in the Koran?
This is so confused, I don't even know what to make of it. ISIS is a "recent flash in the pan." What does that even mean? (I know the meaning of the term, I just don't know what your point is.)
I used ISIS as one example of radical Islam. I in fact named a multitude of Islamist terror groups in my exchange with Michael had you bothered to read it. Nowhere did I suggest that it is the only such organization or that its goals were representative of all religiously-motivated violence carried out by Muslims.
You see, this is where your armchair is going to let you down. Al Qaeda is a termed coined by the FBI. It's not a Muslim organization... radical or otherwise.
Al Qaeda is not composed of radical Muslims? That is news to me.
Reply to Sapientia
I had a picture I took of the Seinfeld restaraunt when I was in NYC. I was going to upload it but came upon my kitty cat pic first, so that's what I sent instead.
Is it also a news flash that Islam produces a disproportionate number of violent radicals relative to other major world religions in the modern world?
This is where my joke about Jewish assholes comes in handy. In the modern era, nobody has done holocaust and attempt at global take-over like the Germans. German-ness is obviously causal here. It was common for people in the Reagan generation (people his age, not the generation while he was president) to actually believe that. They thought Germans were inherently evil and that at any moment the Germans would start trying to take over the world again.
Maybe it's a little more helpful to note that the German culture was severely ailing when the Nazis took over. Germans have been around for ages. Historically, they hardly ever tried to take over the world or kill Jews.
Nowhere did I suggest that it is the only such organization or that its goals were representative of all religiously-motivated violence carried out by Muslims.
OK, so would you like to try again? What is the agenda of radical Islam?
Historically, they hardly ever tried to take over the world or kill Jews.
Debatable. There were numerous and quite brutal pogroms against the Jews along the Rhine during the Middle Ages. The Carolingian Empire and Holy Roman Empire both styled themselves as the reconstituted Western Roman Empire and tried to conquer large swaths of Europe.
In any event, Islam has tried to basically take over the world and has always had anti-semitic streaks.
Debatable. Their were numerous and quite brutal pogroms against the Jews along the Rhine during the Middle Ages. The Carolingian Empire and Holy Roman Empire both styled themselves as the reconstituted Western Roman Empire and tried to conquer large swaths of Europe.
In any event, Islam has tried to basically take over the world and has always had anti-semitic streaks
So your point is that I'm right to be 25% anti-Semitic. LOL.
This is where my joke about Jewish assholes comes in handy. In the modern era, nobody has done holocaust and attempt at global take-over like the Germans. German-ness is obviously causal here. It was common for people in the Reagan generation (people his age, not the generation while he was president) to actually believe that. They thought Germans were inherently evil and that at any moment the Germans would start trying to take over the world again.
The beliefs and propaganda propounded by the Nazi party no doubt played a causal role in Germany's warmongering. What of it?
Maybe it's a little more helpful to note that the German culture was severely ailing when the Nazis took over. Germans have been around for ages. Historically, they hardly ever tried to take over the world or kill Jews.
Their attempt to exterminate the Jews was just an expression of anger at their humiliating defeat in WWI. We really should have taken time to understand the Nazis and see how they were hurting, and asked if there was anything we could have done to ease their feelings of alienation in the world community. Really, it's the fault of Britain, the USA, and their allies. Let's not be a bigoted Germanophobe and blame any problems with German culture at the time which might have precipitated this catastrophe.
OK, so would you like to try again? What is the agenda of radical Islam?
Already answered this above. Depends on the radical Muslim.
Again, could you do me the favor of answering my question regarding police practices?
Is it the case that, because the vast majority of American police officers do not conduct their job duties in a racist or racially discriminatory manner, that American law enforcement writ large therefore does not have a problem with its treatment of black citizens of the United States?
Freakin' good point. Yes. Islam has a problem.
I got into studying Islam in an attempt to answer that very question. Why don't we hear the voices of Muslim clerics loud and clear, condemning terrorism? Yes, there are a few here and there, but where is the Sunni Pope weighing in on the issue?
There is no Sunni Pope. That's why we don't hear him.
But can't you grant me that I also put up a good point: that Nazism is not a testament to the German character. The fact that Nazis were German does not show us a causal connection (vis a vis German-ness causing people to try to take over the world)?
The fact that Nazis were German does not show us a causal connection
This analogy is not parallel. Islam is a religion, whereas "German" identifies an ethnicity. There's nothing about having certain phenotypic features that go into making one a German that causes one to be anti-semitic or what have you. But there can, or at the very least, may be, features in a religion as large, old, and complex as Islam that explain contemporary Islamic terrorism.
But there can, or at the very least, may be, features in a religion as large, old, and complex as Islam that explain contemporary Islamic terrorism.
I wouldn't say explain. We can find aspects of Islam that are conducive to violence. Islamic terrorism can only be understood by placing it in historical context, not religious context.
But can't you grant me that I also put up a good point: that Nazism is not a testament to the German character. The fact that Nazis were German does not show us a causal connection (vis a vis German-ness causing people to try to take over the world)?
I believe that the propaganda propounded by the Nazi party, as well as strains of xenophobia, scapegoating, and nationalism (some of which are disturbingly close to tendencies seen in our time in some countries) likely contributed to the human rights catastrophe which was WW2. No, I don't believe that "German-ness" causes people to try to take over the world. Indeed, Germany may well be the West's last, great hope (and I include the United States in that). I admit to not being a great fan of Merkel when she was pals with Bush, but I believe her to be a level-headed, rational, principled leader.
There was a thread a while back which asked something to the effect of "Is Islam inherently violent"? There are other religions which have a violent history and with violent parts of the their holy books (Christianity comes to mind here), and yet have managed to overcome this history, largely through selective reading of their holy books. I hope that Islam has the capacity to do the same.
Reply to Arkady Germans went through a crazy time. It's not a good idea to try to understand the German culture by examining that particular era. Why did their sanity improve?
There's a part of every culture that is good-hearted and full of hope. Young people usually have a hard time accepting a brutal, hate-filled outlook (Young Republicans and Hitler Youth excepted.)
Yeah, so where are all the Muslims denouncing the actions of extremist Muslims?
That question is very complex.
First, we should recognize that there really isn't a representative for Muslim's around that world that can speak for them. We all should know about the feud between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Furthermore, and this is my personal opinion, there's a great deal of hostility from the right in the US towards Muslim's. Anyone recalls the huge spat in regards to building a mosque near ground zero in NYC? We have gun manufacturers basically printing the cross and quotes from the Bible on their guns that they sold to soldiers to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nobody really cares about what Islam really is in the US, at least from the right.
What else should I mention? The general thing is that the US doesn't really like Islam. That's my opinion on the matter.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 05, 2017 at 02:04#747070 likes
Reply to Arkady
Here's a problem you might want to consider. There are many theists who think that not believing in God (atheism) is the greatest evil, the root of all evil. These people may be spread across many different religions, and depending on the attitude toward tolerance and forgiveness, these people may or may not be inclined to act against this apprehended evil. If some are so inclined, to rise up against this apprehended evil, how are you going to portray these actions, this perceived fight against evil, as itself evil?
It is a nice night with the rain, so I have the window open and the mosquitoes fly to my cell phone light in an otherwise dark room. I smash them on my screen and wipe them away.
Does anyone else feel that Islam needs a representative to defend itself from accusations and the blattent vilification against it? Who or what would serve this role since God is silent and Muhammad long dead?
Im reading these Facebook posts about a number of Gulf states cutting ties with Qatar with people calling the kettle back. Quite depressing that these people seem to know how the world works so well and yet sound as ignorant as possible.
I literally think that if Islamic states could form some representative union in regards to Islam as a whole, then the extremist and radical elements would not have any impact on the true identity of Islam as a religion.
Is this too farfetched and could it not or has not happened already?
This is a question worth an entire book, so can anyone point me out a book to delve in on the matter instead of making snarky posts?
I could swear that some of my recent comments have been deleted in here....
There's no record of any of your comments being deleted over the past few days. However, if you're certain, there's a slim possibility there's a bug with this discussion that makes some comments disappear.
Ah, of course: Islamic terrorism is a result of the West's meddling, foreign policy, and horrid respect for human rights. I'm glad you reminded me. Problem solved, folks: Islam is just peachy.
When we bomb them, it's called liberation, respect for human rights, and when they bomb us it's terrorism. When we sell arms there it's trade, when they swap bomb-making information here, its a network of conspiracy.
Wiki tells me, that by and large, arms are produced by nominally Christian countries, and exported to Muslim countries.
Arms exports
2012-2016
Rank Supplier Arms Exp
1 United States 47169
2 Russia 33186
3 China 8768
4 France 8561
5 Germany 7912
6 United Kingdom 6586
7 Spain 3958
8 Italy 3823
9 Ukraine 3677
10 Israel 3233
But it's Islam that's the source of violence? It's all because of some lines in the Koran? Really? Somewhere in the Bible, I seem to remember a line about taking the beam out of your own eye before you attempt to extract the mote from another's. Do you really not see any connection?
There's a causal connection, which is saying quite a bit.
Causal connection? Men create religions, they imagine political ideologies, the global homicide rates reflect a clear aggregate in findings that show men far outweigh in crime statistics notwithstanding murder, but rape, manslaughter, burglary, domestic violence, embezzlement, sex and drug trafficking. So, perhaps we should hastily generalise and say we need to put a stop to the brutality and aggression of men?
Well yes, they are. Who's buying all those weapons and how are they using them? We're producing them because people are sending their dough over to us and making the cash registers ring ding ding ding! Weapons aren't necessarily evil - I mean weapons exist - just like martial arts - for self-defence and protection. Some people misuse them. Those who misuse them are evil, not those who produce them...
I really don't get this alliance between the Left and Radical Islamic Terrorism...
There is no alliance between the left and radical Islamic terrorism.
Yes there is. We have many people on the Left who openly complain about the actions of the West against Radical Islamic Terrorism, and the measures that are taken to curb it. Look at that:
When we bomb them, it's called liberation, respect for human rights, and when they bomb us it's terrorism.
So what's this to say? We should stop bombing them, and let them destroy us right? Somehow us bombing terrorists is equivalent to terrorists murdering innocent civilians right? This is absolutely insane.
When we bomb them, it's called liberation, respect for human rights, and when they bomb us it's terrorism.
Right: and there's no difference between intentionally targeting civilians in indiscriminate bombings and bombing military targets, correct?
When we sell arms there it's trade, when they swap bomb-making information here, its a network of conspiracy.
Wiki tells me, that by and large, arms are produced by nominally Christian countries, and exported to Muslim countries.
Sure. And Muslim-majority countries export oil and heroin. Yippee.
Arms exports
2012-2016
Rank Supplier Arms Exp
1 United States 47169
2 Russia 33186
3 China 8768
4 France 8561
5 Germany 7912
6 United Kingdom 6586
7 Spain 3958
8 Italy 3823
9 Ukraine 3677
10 Israel 3233
But it's Islam that's the source of violence? It's all because of some lines in the Koran? Really? Somewhere in the Bible, I seem to remember a line about taking the beam out of your own eye before you attempt to extract the mote from another's. Do you really not see any connection?
I agree that Muslim-majority countries are too culturally primitive to handle having weapons sold to them. Let them just throw rocks. It works for the Palestinians.
Causal connection? Men create religions, they imagine political ideologies, the global homicide rates reflect a clear aggregate in findings that show men far outweigh in crime statistics notwithstanding murder, but rape, manslaughter, burglary, domestic violence, embezzlement, sex and drug trafficking. So, perhaps we should hastily generalise and say we need to put a stop to the brutality and aggression of men?
Already covered this. Men are absolutely more violent than women, and people are justified in being more afraid of men than they are women.
I agree that Muslim-majority countries are too culturally primitive to handle having weapons sold to them. Let them just throw rocks. It works for the Palestinians.
Ah, because one with weapons is culturally 'superior'?
Well yes, they are. Who's buying all those weapons and how are they using them?
Yeah, right. Like it's not the pushers and drugs cartels that's the problem, it's the silly users. It's not as if we've been drawing arbitrary borders, installing puppet dictators, arming all sides and sending expeditionary forces to get things started for the last century or so. It's not as if we profit from the chaos and misery, apart from the arms industry itself and the cheap oil, that is.
So what's this to say? We should stop bombing them, and let them destroy us right?
It's to say we should stop arming them. A few desperate violently suicidal idiots are not going to destroy Western 'civilisation'. But Yes, we should stop bombing them, because they are not the ones attacking us. As the article above indicates, the ones attacking us are the ones we sent to attack them.
Fer fucks sake, when people hate you enough to kill themselves in the effort to make you suffer just a wee tiny bit, it is surely be worth wondering whether it might be anything to do with something you did or are still doing to them?
Muslim-majority countries are too culturally primitive to handle having weapons sold to them. Let them just throw rocks. It works for the Palestinians.
But we do it anyway, because we don't give a fuck.
There is no alliance between the left and radical Islamic terrorism.
There is lot of sympathy on the Left for radical Islam. Not everyone is so open as Eric Lifeson on Twitter though. The self-described egalitarian and feminist said...
[quote=Eric Lifeson]Any white people that died in London tonight deserved it. They keep spewing they're filthy nationalistic bullshit.[/quote]
Other than that tweet, which most Leftists would probably either condemn or not be honest enough to say openly, his tweets are completely typical of the trendy Left, whose primary reaction to these events is to seek to protect Islam from criticism, and to worry about "Islamophobia", and to complain about white people and the West.
And in the UK over the past ten years or so, the SWP, Respect, the NUS and other Leftists have shared platforms and formed tactical alliances with Islamists.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 05, 2017 at 11:16#748390 likes
It is a nice night with the rain, so I have the window open and the mosquitoes fly to my cell phone light in an otherwise dark room. I smash them on my screen and wipe them away.
True story.
It is a hot morning with a low of *80 at 4am, the windows are shuttered tight and we haven't seen rain in months. Living in Hell does have it's benefits, such as no mosquitos, no lawn to mow, just acre after acre of parched earth. Yesterday's high was *110 and the Cowboy's spit dried up before it hit the ground.
Fer fucks sake, when people hate you enough to kill themselves in the effort to make you suffer just a wee tiny bit, it is surely be worth wondering whether it might be anything to do with something you did or are still doing to them?
I find it almost incredible that intelligent people are still coming out with this stuff.
Rates of various sorts of violence (from interstate to interpersonal) have been declining for myriad reasons (some of which may be poorly understood), so, whatever we're doing, it appears to be having at least some effect. When it comes to nations, arms control treaties, free trade and the like may be the solution (what's the old adage which says that when goods don't cross borders armies will)?
Ah, because one with weapons is culturally 'superior'?
So what's this to say? We should stop bombing them, and let them destroy us right? Somehow us bombing terrorists is equivalent to terrorists murdering innocent civilians right? This is absolutely insane.
It's not us bombing terrorists that's the problem (except to the extent that it provokes them to attack us in retaliation). It's us bombing innocent civilians. Like the 200 who were killed in Mosul. That number increases to 484 when we include other strikes in Syria, with an estimated 3,800 in total since 2014. It's monstrous.
It's not us bombing terrorists that's the problem (except to the extent that it provokes them to attack us in retaliation). It's us bombing innocent civilians. Like the 200 who were killed in Mosul. That number increases to 484 when we include other strikes in Syria, with an estimated 3,800 in total since 2014. It's monstrous.
Do you not see a difference between intentionally killing as many civilians as possible and striving to minimize civilian collateral damage when bombing terrorists?
Do you not see a difference between intentionally killing as many civilians as possible and striving to minimize civilian collateral damage when bombing terrorists?
Of course. But that doesn't make 3,800 civilian deaths somehow acceptable. Just because one thing is worse than another doesn't mean that only the worse thing should be condemned.
Rates of various sorts of violence (from interstate to interpersonal) have been declining for myriad reasons (some of which may be poorly understood), so, whatever we're doing, it appears to be having at least some effect. When it comes to nations, arms control treaties, free trade and the like may be the solution (what's the old adage which says that when goods don't cross borders armies will)?
So, you are saying that the problem of violence caused by men is on the decline because we can rationally attempt to apply solutions to what is often poorly understood reasons and thus ultimately effect some change?
Of course. But that doesn't make 3,800 civilian deaths somehow acceptable. Just because one thing is worse than another doesn't mean that only the worse thing should be condemned.
It reflects upon the moral character and the type of people we're dealing with when one group strives to minimize innocent victims, and the other strives to maximize them. If the London terrorists had had cruise missiles, they would have gladly launched them into the middle of the most crowded part of London.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 05, 2017 at 11:23#748480 likes
So, you are saying that the problem of violence caused by men is on the decline because we can rationally attempt what is often poorly understood reasons and thus ultimately effect some change?
I'm saying that there has been change. I'm not suggesting that violence is something that we can tweak at will with a dial, in the manner of a TV volume. Progress has been slow, halting, painful, and sometimes reversing itself, but there has been a downward trend in violence.
It reflects upon the moral character and the type of people we're dealing with when one group strives to minimize innocent victims, and the other strives to maximize them. If the London terrorists had had cruise missiles, they would have gladly launched them into the middle of the most crowded part of London.
And that's still not the point. The point is that our actions have led to the death of 3,800 civilians, which is a terrible thing. Turning around and pointing out that there are worse people and worse things in the world doesn't excuse this.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 05, 2017 at 11:24#748510 likes
And that's still not the point. The point is that our actions have led to the death of 3,800 civilians, which is a terrible thing. Turning around and pointing out that there are worse people and worse things in the world doesn't excuse this.
Unless you are willing to examine the issue of intent then there's nothing more to say. If you wish to draw a moral equivalency between two groups because both of them have killed some innocent civilians without looking at the intent underlying their actions, the respective rules of engagement they employ, etc, then you are simply engaging in sophistry in an attempt to draw a false moral equivalency IMO.
Other than that tweet, which most Leftists would probably either condemn or not be honest enough to say openly
I would say most would condemn. But, of course, there are terrible people like Eric Lifeson on both sides of the politic spectrum, but to then use that to tar one or the other side with the same brush is as foolish as using radical Islamic terrorism to justify discrimination and bigotry against Muslims in general, or using racist Brexiters to justify an accusation that those who campaigned to leave the EU are racists.
Fer fucks sake, when people hate you enough to kill themselves in the effort to make you suffer just a wee tiny bit, it is surely be worth wondering whether it might be anything to do with something you did or are still doing to them?
Sure. And when a husband beats his wife, she should really examine what she did to deserve that. After all, men don't just beat women for no reason, do they?
It's not us bombing terrorists that's the problem (except to the extent that it provokes them to attack us in retaliation). It's us bombing innocent civilians. Like the 200 who were killed in Mosul. That number increases to 484 when we include other strikes in Syria, with an estimated 3,800 in total since 2014. It's monstrous.
But the thinking that leads some to deliberately kill innocent people having fun is the same thinking that leads some to throw gay people from the tops of buildings or to massacre people and enslave young girls who belong to the wrong sect. It seems so obviously false to me to pin this on Western military actions in the Middle East, that it looks like a weird delusion, or a refusal to face the facts. The jihadists are morally unhinged and nihilistic. They are not anti-imperialists.
"Most of jihadism’s victims are other Muslims, in the Arab world or in Africa. When they murder and maim Shia Muslims by the hundreds, they’re not doing that to punish western foreign policy. When Isis set about the massacre of Yazidi men and the enslavement and mass rape of Yazidi women and girls, it wasn’t revenge for western meddling in the Middle East. It takes an oddly Eurocentric view of the world to decide that this is a phenomenon entirely of the west’s creation."
Yeah, right. Like it's not the pushers and drugs cartels that's the problem, it's the silly users. It's not as if we've been drawing arbitrary borders, installing puppet dictators, arming all sides and sending expeditionary forces to get things started for the last century or so. It's not as if we profit from the chaos and misery, apart from the arms industry itself and the cheap oil, that is.
We've been doing far worse to the poor Africans historically. Why aren't they all up in arms and sending mugged faced terrorists over to bomb us? Historically, Africa has been the continent that has been most pillaged of resources and people by the West - not the Middle East. Of course we should never have invaded - but if we didn't, we would never have produced the technologically advanced society of today. The industrial revolution was made possible by the vast amount of resources extracted by the likes of the British Empire from the whole of the world. Morally speaking it's despicable, but what can be done now? Destroy our civilisation out of disagreement with what our forefathers decided to do?
But not Christians. Not atheists. Not us. We just profit from other people's failings.
No, we don't misuse them to the extent the barbaric radical Islamic terrorists do. We don't purposefully aim to kill innocent people for the sake of it. We target locations either because (1) there were resources there (in the past), or (2) a dangerous group of terrorists is found there. There's no comparison there. A comparison would have been possible if they were targeting our politicians, but they're not. They're targeting innocent people who have nothing to do with what happened to them or their countries.
Fer fucks sake, when people hate you enough to kill themselves in the effort to make you suffer just a wee tiny bit, it is surely be worth wondering whether it might be anything to do with something you did or are still doing to them?
Yes, it does make you wonder. But when you look at the situation, you see that the reason why they are so violent and rapacious is that they have an underlying barbaric ideology that motivates them to commit acts of terror. Again - why aren't Africans doing the same? Why aren't the Indians doing the same? They were also very badly affected - in fact much worse - because of the West in the past.
But the thinking that leads some to deliberately kill innocent people having fun is the same thinking that leads some to throw gay people from the tops of buildings or to massacre people and enslave young girls who belong to the wrong sect. It seems so obviously false to me to pin this on Western military actions in the Middle East, that it looks like a weird delusion, or a refusal to face the facts. The jihadists are morally unhinged and nihilistic. They are not anti-imperialists.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. I'm simply condemning the fact that we've killed thousands of innocent civilians.
Unless you are willing to examine the issue of intent then there's nothing more to say. If you wish to draw a moral equivalency between two groups because both of them have killed some innocent civilians without looking at the intent underlying their actions, the respective rules of engagement they employ, etc, then you are simply engaging in sophistry in an attempt to draw a false moral equivalency IMO.
I'm not arguing for a moral equivalency. I'm not saying that they're equally bad. I'm saying that they're both bad, and that it's wrong to excuse the lesser wrong simply because there's a greater wrong.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 05, 2017 at 11:37#748600 likes
We should stop bombing them, and let them destroy us right? Somehow us bombing terrorists is equivalent to terrorists murdering innocent civilians right? This is absolutely insane.
You can see how there will never be an end to this vicious circle, can't you? Take out the labels that make it sound like one of us is "right" and one of "them" is wrong and you will see, it is simply man killing man, nothing more.
To call it "insane" is not as accurate as calling it absurd.
I would say most would condemn. But, of course, there are terrible people like Eric Lifeson on both sides of the politic spectrum, but to then use that to tar one or the other side with the same brush is as foolish as using radical Islamic terrorism to justify discrimination and bigotry against Muslims in general, or using racist Brexiters to justify an accusation that those who campaigned to leave the EU are racists.
But it's not straw-manning to say that these Leftist--I would say mainstream--sympathies, while they vary in degree, share a similar attitude that may be making the problem worse. The Leftist rhetoric seeks to protect Islam like no other religion, and has, I believe, encouraged a victim mentality among some Muslims that makes them susceptible to extremism.
Once again I have to point out--because even here, on a philosophy forum FFS, the level of knowledge and thought on this issue is pathetic--that my position is one that supports ordinary Muslims. It is based on the presumption that not all Muslims are Islamists or potential terrorists, that criticizing Islamist extremism is not an attack on Muslims or Islam in general. If we bend over backwards to make excuses for the terrorists, viz., terrorism is a reaction to Western misdeeds that is only to be expected, then we are refusing an understanding of what is really going on, and making it more difficult for moderate Muslims to criticize extremists.
t is based on the presumption that not all Muslims are Islamists or potential terrorists, that criticizing Islamist extremism is not an attack on Muslims or Islam in general. If we bend over backwards to make excuses for the terrorists, viz., terrorism is a reaction to Western misdeeds that is only to be expected, then we are refusing an understanding of what is really going on, and making it more difficult for moderate Muslims to criticize extremists.
I agree with this.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 05, 2017 at 11:43#748630 likes
I don't know what you're trying to say here. I'm simply condemning the fact that we've killed thousands of innocent civilians.
Well, I may have misread you. When you said "It's not us bombing terrorists that's the problem", by "the problem" I took you to mean what is causing these terrorist atrocities to happen.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 05, 2017 at 11:47#748650 likes
I'm not arguing for a moral equivalency. I'm not saying that they're equally bad. I'm saying that they're both bad, and that it's wrong to excuse the lesser wrong simply because there's a greater wrong.
I'm saying that there has been change. I'm not suggesting that violence is something that we can tweak at will with a dial, in the manner of a TV volume. Progress has been slow, halting, painful, and sometimes reversing itself, but there has been a downward trend in violence.
Ok, so now, comparatively speaking, let us look at this abovementioned problem with the following statement:
I agree that Muslim-majority countries are too culturally primitive to handle having weapons sold to them. Let them just throw rocks. It works for the Palestinians.
The phenomenon of violent radicalisation particularly amongst Muslims and the catalyst that triggers terrorism may outweigh other religions, but as we cannot generalise that all men are violent, we cannot generalise Islam. The process of understanding the mechanics of ideological behaviour is much more complex and the anger and frustration that stems from such attacks like that in London makes one resort to simplifying jihadist channels into a complex whole.
The violence in the Middle East, for instance, is a series of proxy wars between the superpowers where innocent civilians are being massacred and their lives uprooted - 5 million refugees with 6 million internally displaced and this is just Syria alone - and you cannot expect that somehow - just as you have experienced anger against these terrorists and consequently generalised - that they too are not eligible to behave the same, irrational, way. Of the 6.3 million IDP in Syria, 50% are children, growing up in war, poverty, violence and encountering advocates of armed resistance by oppressive neo-Salafi groups that inspire a wahabi ideology as a tool to justify an authority and that accompanies radicalisation which reinforces a significance for their existence.
Your statement is merely clarity of your state of mind, which is lacklustre at best.
Reply to jamalrob If I am a trendy lefty, I would like to dissociate myself completely from any such vile nonsense. Such comments as you quote serve only to maintain the divisions and hatred, and continue the pointless violence.Kids going to a concert do not deserve to die, and do not generally spout nationalistic bullshit, and if they do, they probably get it from adults saying things like this: Quoting Arkady
Muslim-majority countries are too culturally primitive to handle having weapons sold to them.
As if we didn't get the number system that is the foundation of our non-primitiveness from the Arabs.
I find it almost incredible that intelligent people are still coming out with this stuff.
I am old enough to remember when it was the Catholics bombing London and Manchester. I remember saying then, that when an elected MP starves himself to death in prison, it is an indication that something is wrong with the society he is protesting against from the point of view at least of the section that elected him. And the incredulity was the same.
It is as if any attempt to see the other side's motivation is a betrayal and support for atrocity. It isn't, it is the intelligent analysis of the situation, and the first step to a resolution.
Well, I may have misread you. When you said "It's not us bombing terrorists that's the problem", by "the problem" I took you to mean what is causing these terrorist atrocities to happen.
No, sorry, it was a response to Agustino asking why the left has a problem with us bombing terrorists. For the most part (I think), it's not bombing terrorists that the left has a problem with, but (as collateral damage) bombing civilians.
Although, there are people like Corbyn who (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) say that the terrorists are attacking us because of our military activity in their countries (but, of course, this doesn't explain why they attack people in their countries).
The Leftist rhetoric seeks to protect Islam like no other religion, and has, I believe, encouraged a victim mentality among some Muslims that makes them susceptible to extremism.
I think that's explained in the same way that leftist rhetoric seeks to protect women more so than men, blacks more so than whites, and homosexuals more so that heterosexuals; because these are the groups that are the subject of the most discrimination and bigotry.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 05, 2017 at 12:09#748830 likes
For those who wish to look and see: The Philosophy Forum got a mention at a Chiropractic convention, that linked it to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page!
Lyle DeMoss is the one who 'mentioned' us and left this review "...just back from Life College speaking at SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE put on by the Georgia Chiropractic Council...big thanks to Awais Butt, Cathy Wendland-Colby, Norman Colby, Brian Lieberman and everyone for the support and Southern hospitality...back in the trench tomorrow morning to see peeps, then an afternoon flight to Seatlle Washington to pump up Dr Randy Baze's PHILOSOPHY FORUM...WE hope some of you Washington DCs and CAs come out tomorrow night to celebrate chiropracTIC....
...here is a link to register>>>>http://chirophilosophyforum.com/
NO REST FOR THE WICKED!!!
I am old enough to remember when it was the Catholics bombing London and Manchester. I remember saying then, that when an elected MP starves himself to death in prison, it is an indication that something is wrong with the society he is protesting against from the point of view at least of the section that elected him. And the incredulity was the same.
It is as if any attempt to see the other side's motivation is a betrayal and support for atrocity. It isn't, it is the intelligent analysis of the situation, and the first step to a resolution.
I agree that it's important to try to understand the motivation of terrorists, but you are attempting to fit their actions into a template which I believe doesn't fit at all. You are treating the actions as political, as rational (not to say correct or good) actions aimed at forcing change, as it was with the IRA. But if, in fact, the terrorists are not motivated by these concerns but solely by a morally rootless will towards apocalypse whose victims need not be white, Christian, or Western, or otherwise recognisably representing the intrerests of Western foreign policy, and if there are ideas that encourage this "jihadi state of mind" which now have currency in the world--then I say that your attempt at understanding is counterproductive, to say the least.
I get the phrase "jihadi state of mind" from Kenan Malik, who wrote an interesting article about it after the Manchester bombing.
[quote=Malik]We need not just confront jihadism in the narrow sense of preventing acts of terror, but also tackle in a broader fashion the jihadi state of mind. Its causes are deep and complex. The moral firewalls against inhuman behavior have weakened. The influence of civil society institutions that help create social bonds, from churches to labor unions, has eroded. So has that of the progressive movements that used to give social grievance a political form.
Cracks now exist in which are spawned angry individuals, inhabiting a space beyond normal moral boundaries. There, they may find in Islamism or white nationalism the salve for their demons and a warped vindication for their actions.
The challenge we face is to rebuild the organizations of civil society and movements for social change that can not only pierce the jihadi state of mind but also channel the grief and love and anger about terrorism into political hope.[/quote]
I think that's explained in the same way that leftist rhetoric seeks to protect women more so than men, blacks more so than whites, and homosexuals more so that heterosexuals; because these are the groups that are the subject of the most discrimination and bigotry.
Do you, then, think it's justified to protect a religion from criticism?
As if we didn't get the number system that is the foundation of our non-primitiveness from the Arabs.
Yup. And read The House of Wisdom by Jim Al-Khalili for a litany of the intellectual accomplishments which once permeated the Arab world while the Western World languished in medieval barbarity. How things have changed.
If a culture has to reach back that far to demonstrate how accomplished it is, that is truly sad. It is like Republicans claiming that they are "the party of Lincoln."
I am old enough to remember when it was the Catholics bombing London and Manchester. I remember saying then, that when an elected MP starves himself to death in prison, it is an indication that something is wrong with the society he is protesting against from the point of view at least of the section that elected him. And the incredulity was the same.
It is as if any attempt to see the other side's motivation is a betrayal and support for atrocity. It isn't, it is the intelligent analysis of the situation, and the first step to a resolution.
Your theory might hold more water if Muslim terrorists didn't primarily kill other Muslims. The attacks in the West get more attention, but ISIS attacks in Muslim-majority countries are more deadly. It is also impotent to explain their brutal treatment of groups such as the Yazidis (should the Yazidis have done some introspection to see what they did to deserve said treatment?).
No, sorry, it was a response to Agustino asking why the left has a problem with us bombing terrorists. For the most part (I think), it's not bombing terrorists that the left has a problem with, but (as collateral damage) bombing civilians.
Although, there are people like Corbyn who (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) say that the terrorists are attacking us because of our military activity in their countries (but, of course, this doesn't explain why they attack people in their countries).
Cool.
I do think that Western military action--which I was against--opened up space for the growth of ISIS, but the knee-jerk explanation of Islamist terrorism in terms of anti-imperialist politics is saying something else entirely.
Do you, then, think it's justified to protect a religion from criticism?
I think it's fine to criticise a religion (in the sense of criticizing its religious texts). I just don't think it's fine to discriminate against and be bigoted towards people of that religion simply because it's their religion – although it's fine to condemn them for their actions.
I probably criticize Christianity a lot, but very rarely Christians (except when they're actively homophobic and the like, but in those cases it's the homophobia that's the problem, not being a Christian).
Reply to Michael I agree. But it is the criticism of Islam, the religion, or of Islamism, the ideological movement in Islam--and not only bigotry--that is often labelled as "Islamophobia". This is why moderate Muslims, such as Maajid Nawaz, and ex-Muslims, are called Islamophobes by some sections of the Left, as well as by Islamists.
I see this as an honest attempt at understanding a new phenomenon on its own terms.
I largely agree with this, and when you include the likes of Damon Smith and Dylann Roof in the picture, the whole 'Islamic extremism' thing starts to look inadequate as a way of understanding. It looks more like a violent nihilism that appropriates whatever cultural baggage is around.
"The challenge we face is to rebuild the organizations of civil society..." Well the first challenge is to notice that they are broken, and that the anti-civil, anti-social, inhuman behaviour of these people has some connection with the civil society that these pages so determinedly seek to exclude entirely from civil, social, humanity.
I see Malik as saying in effect that this is somewhat a psychological matter, and as I have argued at length elsewhere, psychological conditions are reflections in the individual of social conditions. The Victorians had hysteria, and women throwing themselves under horses, we have depression, eating disorders, and suicide bombers.
And they have a religious gloss on what looks to me rather close to the Fascist movements that overwhelmed much of Europe in the 30's. And that indicates how totally different they are, not. What were the causes of that wave of extremism? Are there lessons to learn?
If a culture has to reach back that far to demonstrate how accomplished it is, that is truly sad.
That was me reaching for a handy acknowledgement in our own culture of its roots in primitive foreignness that even you cannot deny, though you make a valiant effort to belittle it.
Unless you are willing to examine the issue of intent then there's nothing more to say.
Imagine that we were able to get our hands on a terrorist who killed people and we try him. Nuremburg is the easiest place to do it. We ask why he did those terrible things and he says he was a soldier for Islam. He was just doing what he was told.
Nope. Blaming an abstraction won't do. That relieves the murderer of responsibility. Can't blame Islam.
Reply to unenlightened
Sorry Un, the numbering system we use is actually Indian, not Arabian. Algebra, though... you can use that.
I largely agree with this, and when you include the likes of Damon Smith and Dylann Roof in the picture, the whole 'Islamic extremism' thing starts to look inadequate as a way of understanding. It looks more like a violent nihilism that appropriates whatever cultural baggage is around.
Yes, but alongside this deeper, or more general kind of analysis, people gotta fight for what's right locally, and that means addressing actually existing ideas, such as white supremacism or Islamic extremism, whatever it may be. The ideas don't get off the hook because we recognize we've lost "the organizations of civil society" and "progressive movements". In fact, I would say it's partly by confronting the ideas that we might be able to salvage or rebuild these organizations and movements. But that is not possible in a culture that makes it uncomfortable to speak your mind about things.
Handmade wool rugs. Most of the stuff on my shop right now is wool/silk scarves I stockpiled and was going to sew together into a blanket. I put them on Etsy to get used to doing it. It's sort of forcing me to focus. I'm pretty scattered by nature.
Sorry Un, the numbering system we use is actually Indian, not Arabian. Algebra, though... you can use that.
Indeed, but we got them from the Arabs. But algebra too, why not. They shouldn't have trusted us primitives with such things, they've only themselves to blame.
Reply to unenlightened I think it could be argued that Europe used the Middle East to pull itself out of retrogression. It was all kinds of things: swords, fabrics...
One response might be to say that sympathy for Islamism is not the same as an alliance with Islamic terrorism. This is true as far as it goes, but the Islamist and extremely conservative ideas that these pro-Islamist Leftists indulge are the very ones that have been made real in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, and in ISIS-controlled territory, and which have motivated Islamic terrorists.
Another response is that it's just a bunch of Trots and loony lefties who don't have much influence outside their own very small circles, but it seems to me that these sympathies have spread beyond the far left into the liberal left mainstream.
Oh sorry, I see that Thorongil already agreed to nail you up. Well, just in case you don't stay dead, I'm available to re-crucify you at your earliest possible convenience.
Reply to Mongrel I was in a knitting class once, and my attempt was held up as being by far the worst in the class, an example of how not to knit. So I put it on my list of things I don't really have anything against but don't want to do myself, like surfing and climbing Everest.
I've gotten better about spiders. I haven't gotten better about Islam.
A batch of churches in Minneapolis have put up signs on their lawn wishing for a merry ramadan or something. I don't really know what the point of this is--beyond being one of those limp-wristed liberal maneuvers. They don't wish Jews a merry passover or pagans a witchy Walpurgisnacht. I'm all for bonfires and orgies.
Reply to jamalrob All the people and groups in that seem to be connected to the Socialist
Workers Party, who are far-left Trotskyists. I don't think it reasonable to treat that as indicative of the Left in general. That would be like thinking fascist groups are indicative of the Right in general.
Reply to Michael As you may have noticed, I did anticipate that response. I think it's quite evident that their pro-Islamism has spread beyond their small circle, though I can't really be arsed digging up the evidence right now. It's probably the case that the SWP was never actually the source, only that it took it the farthest.
Incidentally, it may have been partly that issue that led to the SWP falling apart, alongside the rape allegations. I know a lot of Trotskyist or former Trotskyist leftists who were aghast at the SWP's pro-Islamism.
It's not us bombing terrorists that's the problem (except to the extent that it provokes them to attack us in retaliation). It's us bombing innocent civilians. Like the 200 who were killed in Mosul. That number increases to 484 when we include other strikes in Syria, with an estimated 3,800 in total since 2014. It's monstrous.
When will we get over the idea that bombs have the accuracy of ace snipers? Bombs are useful weapons for killing people but they lack finesse, of necessity. Drop a bomb on a building in which there are 10 enemy operators and 15 non-combatants, and there is a good chance of not getting rid of all 10 enemies and killing off some of the non-combatants.
We either drop bombs or we send in soldiers to pick through the city, room by room, and selectively shoot only those who are certified enemies. We know from past experience that that approach leads to even more dead bodies.
For the most part (I think), it's not bombing terrorists that the left has a problem with, but (as collateral damage) bombing civilians.
Absolutely. It's unfortunate that this needs to be pointed out. @Arkady - I don't disagree that the issue of intent is relevant to the ethics of all of this, but it's not an ace in the hole that dissolves the moral issue in every case in favour of our conventional military operations. If I drop a bomb on your apartment building intending only to kill a group of terrorists who live there but knowing there is a very high possibility I will also kill your entire innocent family who are unfortunate enough to share the same building, I'd venture you would consider my "intent" a poor excuse for my actions. And rightly so - If we know to a high degree of certainty that we will kill innocent civilians on a military operation, the fact that we didn't intend to becomes less and less relevant in proportion to that degree of certainty. And if we're essentially sure we're going to kill them, it's fatuous to say we didn't intend to. We chose to and must bear responsibility for that. On top of that, conventional military operations generally kill far more innocent civilians than terrorist actions. So, any fair moral comparison of Action A by a terrorist or militant group and Action B by a conventional military force would have to take into consideration far more than mere intent. In other words, it's obvious what the terrorists do is evil because they make no bones about it, but the fact that we do doesn't make us any better in every case.
My prediction is that this isn't going to end well for the Muslims. Since the World Trade Center was bombed, I think things have gotten significantly worse for the Muslim world than the European/American world. I can't imagine that any Muslim (especially a radicalized one) sleeps well knowing that Trump is in office, and let's not pretend that's not one reason he was elected.
Instead of putting ourselves in their shoes and worrying about what they must be thinking, let's put ourselves in their shoes putting them in our shoes. I know, pretty complicated empathy, but if we can empathize with them, we can imagine them empathizing for us. That is, if I were them, I'd be thinking that if we keep terrorizing their citizens, they are understandably going to start killing all of us. That's what we're about to do - again.
In other words, it's obvious what the terrorists do is evil because they make no bones about it, but the fact that we do doesn't make us any better in every case.
Intent is relevant, and assuming both sides are sincere in their recitation of their intent, the terrorists intent is to terrorize and the military commanders intent is to quash further terrorism. Morally speaking, those aimed at terrorizing are decidedly worse than those aiming to end further terrorism. I'd go further and blame the terrorists for the predictable outcome of their terrorism, which would include them being sought out and killed and the predictable collateral damage that follows. If I murder my neighbor and flee the police and the officer strikes a pedestrian during the chase, I bear the blame in that as I have set off that predictable chain of events.
I also don't buy into the moral equivalence argument, suggesting that we all have various customs and beliefs, with none being any better or worse, and all should be afforded the same protection. To the extent there is a cultural battle being waged, with the Muslim world wishing to impose its beliefs on the rest of the world, and the Western world wishing to impose its beliefs on the rest of the world, I have no problem supporting and advocating for the Western world to prevail. That is to say, one reason I see the damage to the Muslim world to be of lesser significance than that to the Western world is because the Western world is ideologically and morally superior. If real efforts are not made to eliminate terrorism, which might include the unfortunate large loss of life, then we all stand faced with a far greater tragedy, which would be the loss of our superior way of life and the protection of all the ideals we hold closest.
Intent is relevant, and assuming both sides are sincere in their recitation of their intent, the terrorists intent is to terrorize and the military commanders intent is to quash further terrorism. Morally speaking, those aimed at terrorizing are decidedly worse than those aiming to end further terrorism. I'd go further and blame the terrorists for the predictable outcome of their terrorism, which would include them being sought out and killed and the predictable collateral damage that follows. If I murder my neighbor and flee the police and the officer strikes a pedestrian during the chase, I bear the blame in that as I have set off that predictable chain of events.
I reckon you'd feel differently (and so would argue differently) if Israel bombed your neighbourhood, killing your family, with the intent to kill some neo-Nazi terrorist group that organise attacks in Jerusalem.
and assuming both sides are sincere in their recitation of their intent
We can assume something like that for the sake of this argument, but in practice there's no compelling reason to think that the military is always going to be honest about their intentions. Also:
Morally speaking, those aimed at terrorizing are decidedly worse than those aiming to end further terrorism.
You'll need to define what you mean by "terrorism" and "terrorizing" without resorting to irrelevancies like size of army, country of origin etc The aim of conventional military operations is also sometimes to terrorize. The "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad is a case in point. If you simply mean deliberately aiming to kill innocent civilians, we're still not there. Militants who attack Israeli soldiers are labelled terrorists regardless of what group they belong to or whether there's any evidence of them aiming to kill civilians. Conventional armies who target civilians never are. So exactly how do we delineate what terrorizing is and who terrorists are?
If I murder my neighbor and flee the police and the officer strikes a pedestrian during the chase, I bear the blame in that as I have set off that predictable chain of events.
So we can be held entirely responsible for consequences we didn't intend then? That sounds like my argument. It's predictable that bombing an apartment block that has civilians in it as well as terrorists will cause civilian casualties, so the army is morally responsible for those casualties even though it didn't intend them. Although you seem to have put the case even more strongly than I (presumably because you think that moral blame can somehow be ring-fenced around those you disapprove of regardless of principle. On reflection I'm sure you'll agree that's not going to fly). Anyway, I would say we don't get absolved of blame from our own actions because others set off a chain of events that put us in the situation we happened to be in. That goes for terrorists, generals and soldiers on the ground.
I also don't buy into the moral equivalence argument, suggesting that we all have various customs and beliefs, with none being any better or worse, and all should be afforded the same protection.
I'll presume this is just you thinking out loud seeing as I never made this argument.
To the extent there is a cultural battle being waged, with the Muslim world wishing to impose its beliefs on the rest of the world, and the Western world wishing to impose its beliefs on the rest of the world, I have no problem supporting and advocating for the Western world to prevail. That is to say, one reason I see the damage to the Muslim world to be of lesser significance than that to the Western world is because the Western world is ideologically and morally superior. If real efforts are not made to eliminate terrorism, which might include the unfortunate large loss of life, then we all stand faced with a far greater tragedy, which would be the loss of our superior way of life and the protection of all the ideals we hold closest.
It sounds like you think the mass slaughter of innocent civilians is necessary and justifiable if it also results in the elimination of terrorism as otherwise our "superior way of life" will disappear? Not sure what "ideals" you uphold but if that is what you mean, there's not much enlightenment thinking there. In fact, there's not much thinking at all there. The idea that our way of life is under threat from terrorists is hyperbole. And a far greater threat to western ideals lies in these kinds of blind rationalizations of violence against innocents.
I reckon you'd feel differently (and so would argue differently) if Israel bombed your neighbourhood, killing your family, with the intent to kill some neo-Nazi terrorist group that organise attacks in Jerusalem.
The typical way we evaluate matters is to find an unbiased, unaffected person to do the evaluating. I think by making me the victim of the attacks, I'd be the least objective person to evaluate the appropriateness of the attack. I will say that if a terrorist group uses innocent victims as shields, it is the terrorist group that is to blame for the ensuing tragedy.
If, though, you are truly a Kantian on this issue, I guess you'd have to allow the terrorists to continue with impunity if the only way to reduce their threat is by injuring innocent parties. You have to accept though that reasonable people do not adhere to such conclusions.
The typical way we evaluate matters is to find an unbiased, unaffected person to do the evaluating.
You're not being unbiased when you judge your way of life to be superior to another way of life, or when you consider it acceptable for some far-away civilians to die if it means that your friends and family are safe(r) from terrorism.
We can assume something like that for the sake of this argument, but in practice there's no compelling reason to think that the military is always going to be honest about their intentions.
I guess that's true, but sometimes terrorists aren't entirely honest in speaking about their intentions. I would assume many terrorists speak of some higher good they're accomplishing, as opposed to actually admitting they just enjoy a good terror spree. That is to say, I expected an objection regarding the sincerity I hypothetically attributed to the terrorists before I received the one you posited regarding the sincerity of the military.
So exactly how do we delineate what terrorizing is and who terrorists are?
Ahh yes, the complicated world of nuance where I can't decipher a moral difference between a man driving a truck into a crowd of average citizens and a targeted military action. I do acknowledge the existence of unjust wars of course, but, even then, I don't confuse unjust wars with terrorist acts. Regardless, I'll concede the general point that we can't always know when a cup is a cup.
At any rate, my statement was that where a military effort is made to eliminate terrorism, that military effort is justified. Quoting Baden
So we can be held entirely responsible for consequences we didn't intend then?
You are responsible for the consequences that foreseeably flow from your intentional conduct. If I set your house on fire intending only to scare you, but instead, I set you also on fire, and you then come out running and jumping like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz, I can hardly argue that I just meant to scare you, not actually burn you. Maybe I thought you were smart enough to stop, drop, and roll, but, just like the scarecrow of lore, you didn't have a brain.Quoting Baden
Anyway, I would say we don't get absolved of blame from our own actions because others set off a chain of events that put us in the situation we happened to be in. That goes for terrorists, generals and soldiers on the ground.
It's obviously not so black and white. Everyone has to be reasonable and has to make real life decisions that have serious consequences. If I can eliminate a terrorist group that has been shown to murder indiscriminately, I should obviously seek to do that. If that means an innocent might die, then I have to weigh that and make a decision. Maybe you would sleep better knowing that no innocent died at your hands today despite hundreds of innocents dying at the hands of the terrorist tomorrow because you failed to take action yesterday. You can see why many wouldn't sleep so well knowing they made the decision you're advocating.Quoting Baden
sounds like you think the mass slaughter of innocent civilians is necessary and justifiable if it also results in the elimination of terrorism as otherwise our "superior way of life" will disappear?
You do as well, although you just don't want to admit that we're just arguing over acceptable numbers right now. If "mass" slaughter is one innocent life to destroy 100 terrorists who would likely cause additional death, I think you'd be required to agree, right? So, let's just keep playing with the numbers: 5 innocents for 10 terrorists, which will save 100 future deaths by the terrorists? That is to say, we're agreeing in principle. We just need to now arrive at the nauseating calculus we find acceptable.
You're not being unbiased when you judge your way of life to be superior to another way of life, or when you consider it acceptable for some far-away civilians to die if it means that your friends and family are safe(r) from terrorism
I knew we'd arrive here sooner or later: Moral relativism. Who am I to say that my way of life is superior to another's. Do we need to now debate the respective merits of British culture versus Saudi Arabian culture, or will all those things I declare abhorrent be dismissed by you on the basis of bias?
You're not being unbiased when you judge your way of life to be superior to another way of life, or when you consider it acceptable for some far-away civilians to die if it means that your friends and family are safe(r) from terrorism.
I quite agree with Hanover on this point. It's like this. It's not that I'm saying Western culture is superior to other cultures around the world because our women dress as they do instead of wearing burkhas (for example). Indeed, I don't think that's the case - those cultural aspects can be different without a culture being considered superior. But it is true that our culture is superior because we don't tolerate barbaric and inhuman violence, for no purpose at all.
The fact that these people go around - in their own countries - and make hell holes out of them, torturing innocents, killing children, raping young girls, and the worst imaginable abominations - that screams to the very heavens for justice, and if the West has to deliver that justice, then we should smite them off the face of the planet. There's no question here of being biased. I am totally not biased. I'm not complaining about petty cultural differences without a difference (like how their women dress, whether they can marry more than one woman, and so forth). I'm pointing to abominable differences. If there is a culture that encourages the worst crimes possible, then I'm totally not biased when I say we should bomb the fuck out of them.
The truth is we have a divine duty to clear out these monsters off the face of the planet. The problem isn't Islam. It's radical Islamic terrorism - something that many Islamic countries will be more than willing to help us annihilate if we decide to do it with our full force. In fact, if the US, Russia, Turkey and Saudi got in a room, they could sort out a deal to wipe the terrorists off.
I knew we'd arrive here sooner or later: Moral relativism. Who am I to say that my way of life is superior to another's. Do we need to now debate the respective merits of British culture versus Saudi Arabian culture, or will all those things I declare abhorrent be dismissed by you on the basis of bias?
I didn't say that morality is relative. I said that you're not unbiased.
What's the difference? Of what value is the objective morality if we're all too biased to see it?
I'm commenting on your earlier retort that "the typical way we evaluate matters is to find an unbiased, unaffected person to do the evaluating" in response to me suggesting that you'd think differently were it your family being killed. The issue is that you're not unbiased when you claim that it's an acceptable loss when it's somebody else's family dying as collateral damage.
I'm commenting on your earlier retort that "the typical way we evaluate matters is to find an unbiased, unaffected person to do the evaluating" in response to me suggesting that you'd think differently were it your family being killed. The issue is that you're not unbiased when you claim that it's an acceptable loss when it's somebody else's family dying as collateral damage.
To clarify then as to my retort: If dealing with a specific incident of loss, I would not be the proper person to evaluate what ought be done to remedy that loss if I am the one who suffered the loss. For example, if you were charged with stealing my car, you might be upset to learn that I was the judge assigned to consider whether you were the one who stole my car, and you'd be even more upset to learn that I was the one designated to arrive at an appropriate punishment for you if found guilty. Maybe you'd think a different judge might be better suited for the task than me.
This is very different from claiming, which I took you to be claiming, that we are all biased in some way that the concept of accurate judgment is meaningless.
1. Unlike IRA, ETA and other recent terrorist groups, it isn't clear to me what the political solution is. IRA and others stopped because they gained a political voice. We could negotiate with ISIS to some extent as they seem to have a political goal but I don't see any possibility for domestic terrorism.
2. The discussion about whether there's something typical about Islam that makes it more violent or not isn't fruitful. Not only because people assign a different level of causality to the religious angle for terrorists but because you can't fight an idea and killing all Muslims isn't a solution. That said, I'm not sure about the value of raising terrorist's favourite interpretations as being significantly representative of Islam when there are a lot of other interpretations out there.
We could negotiate with ISIS to some extent as they seem to have a political goal but I don't see any possibility for domestic terrorism.
Would you think that ISIS is sufficiently rational to even be worth negotiating with? I can't but feel that negotiating with terrorists - in essence, giving in to some of the demands they have - is highly immoral. It means that we accept their barbarous way of life, and barbarous ideals as worthy of existing. Effectively we give them legitimacy.
This is very different from claiming, which I took you to be claiming, that we are all biased in some way that the concept of accurate judgment is meaningless.
We are all biased, but I'm sure we can make accurate judgements nonetheless. Which is exactly why being the victim of collateral damage doesn't entail that your biased condemnation isn't also correct.
Take for example the common disagreement between poor Democrats and wealthy Republicans. The former are biased in arguing that they have a right to some minimum level of state-provided welfare and the latter are biased in arguing that they have a right to keep a greater percentage of their earnings than the current tax rate allows. Yet one or the other is correct (leaving aside some middle-ground for the sake of argument) despite the bias.
Would you think that ISIS is sufficiently rational to even be worth negotiating with? I can't but feel that negotiating with terrorists - in essence, giving in to some of the demands they have - is highly immoral.
Do you know how IRA and UK negotiated over the years? In secret of course because the delicate sensibilities of most people would mean political suicide. In the end it led to peace.
But yes, I do think they're rational enough but aren't sure we should - I mentioned it as a possibility in principle. My reservations to do so would be with their clear atrocities within their own borders against their own and others. Any agreement would mean condemning a lot of people to this oppression.
We are all biased, but I'm sure we can make accurate judgements nonetheless. Which is exactly why being the victim of collateral damage doesn't entail that your biased condemnation isn't also correct.
You asked that I offer an objective evaluation of the death of my family that resulted from Israel killing terrorists who apparently were using my family as a shield. I would say that it's entirely possible that the Israeli military was justified, and it might very well be that my anger would be entirely at the terrorists that elicited the military attack, but I also think it's somewhat absurd to ask that I be the judge of it. I would think that my concerns would be focused on addressing the devastation that has come to my life. I'd not be in any state to render a meaningful judgment, and I might be overly concerned with things like revenge and hatred to be trusted.
So, yeah, I reckon I'd feel differently if the death was to your family than mine, not that I don't care about the Michael clan, but Michaels are a dime a dozen.
Chomsky has been over this issue a million times. I don't see why us liberals can't take his word for it, as if making a mistake by appealing to his authority is a greater mistake than misunderstanding this complex issue.
Anyway, I might just put it out there that Chomsky is the leading authority on the matter and can safely be assumed that is genuine and sincere in his analysis and conclusions.
Imagine that we were able to get our hands on a terrorist who killed people and we try him. Nuremburg is the easiest place to do it. We ask why he did those terrible things and he says he was a soldier for Islam. He was just doing what he was told.
Nope. Blaming an abstraction won't do. That relieves the murderer of responsibility. Can't blame Islam.
Nothing about "blaming" Islam as a community of practitioners, system of beliefs, or religion absolves the murderer for his own actions. If we say that a white supremacist's killing spree against, say, black churchgoers in South Carolina, was motivated by a particular brand of white nationalist sentiment picked up on a website or elsewhere, we can cite those beliefs as a motivating factor while still holding the killer himself culpable.
Nothing about "blaming" Islam as a community of practitioners, system of beliefs, or religion absolves the murderer for his own actions. If we say that a white supremacist's killing spree against, say, black churchgoers in South Carolina, was motivated by a particular brand of white nationalist sentiment picked up on a website or elsewhere, we can cite those beliefs as a motivating factor while still holding the killer himself culpable.
I doubt there are many murderers who act without motive of some sort or another. Do you think it's important to consider those motives? For a social engineering project perhaps?
Just a stab in the dark, but does anyone know of any philosophical work on the essence of science fiction? I'm particularly interested in the common tropes and leitmotifs that build the characteristic "aesthetic" of science fiction. For example, the emphasis on technology (Heidegger would probably be relevant with his discussion on presence-at-hand), an almost religious conception of science and exploration as the penultimate purpose of human society (kind of like a form of scientism), xenophobia, the "mysterious" nature of space, the unstable and unsure future of humanity, dark forces from the "beyond" that add to the intrigue, etc etc etc. Probably the best example of what I'm talking about is Mass Effect, but also Star Trek and some of the recent space exploration movies.
Chomsky has been over this issue a million times. I don't see why us liberals can't take his word for it, as if making a mistake by appealing to his authority is a greater mistake than misunderstanding this complex issue.
Anyway, I might just put it out there that Chomsky is the leading authority on the matter and can safely be assumed that is genuine and sincere in his analysis and conclusions.
Well Mr. Chomsky is a national treasure imho, as well as a wonderful role model for any activist. And i mean any activist: left, right, center, and everything in between. His quiet demeanor, scholarship, and untiring commitment is an inspiration and a rarity, no matter if one happens to disagree with him. I try not to accept anyone's word unquestioningly, but i trust him more than probably any other public figure. For example, i disagree with him when he says the current GOP is the one organization more dangerous to world stability than the Islamic State. The Democratic party is a close second, followed by the Wall Street bankers who would sell their soul to close a deal. That is, assuming they still have one left to sell.
Reply to 0 thru 9 His psyche is scarred by the Cuban missile crisis. Treasure, yes. Guide for youngsters? I don't think so. They have no guide but their own gumption. No living oldies have any experience with the world a youngster is going to be navigating.
I have confidence in them, though. They'll be fine.
I should say that it's good to see jamal actually posting and wiping the floor with his own leftist mods. Arkady shut them down well, too.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but note that on this issue I also disagree with our lone conservative mod (Hanover). I think both conservatives and leftists mostly adhere to an us-and-them narrative that doesn't make any sense to me. For one side, Muslims are the enemy of the West, and for the other, Muslims are oppressed by the West.
Reply to Michael
Here are some nails and a cross. People have to crucify themselves nowadays. You know, not being a drag and all the jazz about self reliance?
Reply to Michael I was just being sarcastic about conservativism, which really should be the main talking point in regards to the talk about Islam here.
Although, there are people like Corbyn who (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) say that the terrorists are attacking us because of our military activity in their countries (but, of course, this doesn't explain why they attack people in their countries).
I don't think he'd put it quite so simply. I was watching him talk about this just the other day, and he was very careful with his wording.
Well, what's there to say? It just seems to me that conservatives live in a different sort of world or rather world-view. It's hard to explain adequately without some knowledge about human biology and such.
I'm just honestly tired of bashing conservatives as such and such based on ignorance or of being uneducated. Maybe I'm just presenting my own prejudice about who or what constitutes a conservative since they seem to be just as able and more willing to participate in society and see how things unfold.
Reply to Question You said you thought it should be the main subject of discussion with respect to Islam, so I suggested you talk about it, thinking maybe you had something to say about it.
Yes, I do have something to say and I can be concise about it if understanding me is an issue.
More conservatives dislike Muslims and Islam than do liberals.
That this should be the main point is because the US is much more conservative than the rest of the civilized world, except a certain few countries, and has a disproportionate amount if involvement in the Middle East than do other countries.
Why is that?
If conservativism is an issue here then one can use 'American conservativism' if need be.
Reply to Question So the issue you think we should be talking about is: why do more conservatives dislike Muslims and Islam than do liberals? Maybe because being conservatives they want to preserve a way of life, and they think it's threatened by Islam?
Reply to Question The book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt responds directly to your question about the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives. Haidt is a self-described liberal by the way, which has to be mentioned because liberals wouldn't even consider reading the book without that understanding (which already says a lot).
It's a very interesting read really. One thing the book makes very clear is the liberal misunderstanding of the conservative position. I forget the actual stat, but when liberals were asked to answer questions as a conservative would, they were correct around 25% of the time, but conservatives could respond accurately as liberals close to 100% of the time. The reason given is that conservatives rely upon (again, I'm going off recollection from a while ago when I read it) something like 6 different principles when arriving at a conclusion, but liberals rely upon something like 2. The conservative view is actually very nuanced, and I think that liberals are just too quick to reject it as being the result of lack of education or intellect.
As an example, liberals decry the conservative lack of compassion, caring nothing for the poor or less fortunate, yet conservatives give charity and volunteer at rates that far exceed liberals (The book Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks (Warning: a conservative) makes that clear). It's the conservatives lack of reliance on government that separates them from the liberal when it comes to helping the less fortunate, not their lack of compassion.
And so to the conservative a liberal appears like an irrational, emotional creature, refusing entirely to understand the simplest distinctions, but instead just smugly moralizing about contemporary values, while admittedly having no way to ground those morals into anything absolute. As an example, I think liberals have a real problem with declaring Western superiority and the superiority of the Judeo-Christian values it was founded upon. In fact, that last sentence will stand out to some as incredibly offensive and small minded (and Baden will think it's trolling because he refuses to believe I believe half of what I say). When you don't live a relativistic world, things are much more clear, and hearing someone speak with such clarity and certainty comes across to the relativist as brash, obnoxious, uneducated, mean, and intentionally provocative, when the conservative thinks he's just calling a spade a spade.
So the issue you think we should be talking about is: why do more conservatives dislike Muslims and Islam than do liberals? Maybe because being conservatives they want to preserve a way of life, and they think it's threatened by Islam?
Yes, and liberals side with Muslims because they see them as an oppressed party, and their mindset is to come to the aid of the underdog.
Reply to Mongrel
Chomsky is still popular with college students. Bernie Sanders kind of tapped into that "wise grandfather" vibe, too. Although his being a politician running for president, i was a little doubtful how sincere he was. Or least, how practical and realistic his plans were. After being let down (predictably) by Obama, and all his Hope/Change marketing bs, skepticism turned into cynicism. Politicians running for office have all the believability of a horny teenage guy in a backseat of a car, telling a girl "I will love you forever!" O:)
That this should be the main point is because the US is much more conservative than the rest of the civilized world, except a certain few countries, and has a disproportionate amount if involvement in the Middle East than do other countries.
American involvement in the Middle East is explainable not only in terms of its ideological differences with other Western nations, but more so in terms of its political standing in the world. That is, the US doesn't just want to involve itself in these wars, but it also feels it has the duty to and it also has the ability to. That fact that it has sufficient resources and the ability to enter these wars separates it from many of the other European nations who jeer from the sidelines.
And Baden will think it's trolling because he refuses to believe I believe half of what I say
Well, you do say things like "I bathe daily in the Nile, defacating, scrubbing, washing my clothes and dishes, all in one sitting. Cleanses my mind, body, and spirit."
Reply to Hanover I agree with most of that, and I have no trouble saying that the values of openness, tolerance, liberty, democracy, and so on, are superior to the values of conservative Islam. But I wouldn't want to call them specifically, or primarily, Judeo-Christian, and I'm not comfortable claiming them for the West. This is not liberal squeamishness. The values I think are superior may just as accurately be called Enlightenment, or even liberal, values. And what you might call Western values have inspired movements and revolutions all over the world and still inspire the Kurds who are fighting ISIS, and democrats throughout the Muslim world who are being besieged by Islamic conservatives. If you mean merely that they originated in Europe, then there's certainly a lot of truth in that, but if you mean it in more of a Clash of Civilizations, West against the rest kind of way, then I think that's a problem. And again, this is not liberal softness: it's a problem because those values need to be fought for and spread, and the Clash of Civilizations, which alienates potential allies, only hampers that.
Anyway, I'm a long way from being a liberal in the American Democrat or Guardianista sense.
I think both conservatives and leftists mostly adhere to an us-and-them narrative that doesn't make any sense to me. For one side, Muslims are the enemy of the West, and for the other, Muslims are oppressed by the West.
Well, you do say things like "I bathe daily in the Nile, defacating, scrubbing, washing my clothes and dishes, all in one sitting. Cleanses my mind, body, and spirit."
That's not trolling. That's just something I do when visiting the Nile.
I enter the Nile in Uganda, which is 85% Christian. They also have really good locker rooms where you can keep your shit while you're wading around petting the hippos. And no, I'm not talking about your mom, but an actual hippo. This is the Shoutbox, I can say whatever I want.
(and Baden will think it's trolling because he refuses to believe I believe half of what I say)
You believe it. You just don't understand it. I'm not a relativist by the way (and I don't know who the relativist bogeyman you keep referencing is either) - I believe enlightenment values are superior to anything else heretofore posited in terms of forming the basis of a culture. And one of those enlightenment values is the ability to separate yourself from your "team" and take a cool and dispassionate ethical look at your own actions as well as those of others. That's something you seem not only absolutely unable to do but actually proud of being unable to do. You can pat yourself on the head and say that's just calling a spade a spade but your basic attitude on this crucial point makes you as primitive as your enemies.
And one of those enlightenment value is the ability to separate yourself from your "team" and take a cool and dispassionate ethical look at your own actions as well as those of others. That's something you seem not only absolutely unable to do but actually proud of being unable to do. You can pat yourself on the head and say that's just calling a spade a spade but your basic attitude on this crucial point makes you as primitive as your enemies.
Salty.
I declare myself enlightened, ethical, dispassionate, and whatever medals you pin on yourself. That was a really good exercise in self congratulations.
Anyway, I'm not as primitive as my enemies. My enemies kill people in the name of religion.
What is appealing about Noam Chomsky (to me, imho) among other things, is his old school debating manner, for lack of a better description. The ability to be civil, rational, and almost affable while offering the most scathing critique of national policy and leaders, no matter what party. Compare to Bill Maher. Ok, it may be unfair comparing a professor with an entertainer, but both could be considered left-leaning political commentators. And while professors must "publish or perish", TV shows must have "ratings, or perish embarrassingly in front of everyone". That said, Mr. Maher seems to be more like UFC and pro wrestling than a spirited and fair debater. The sound bite rules... nothing new to be sure. Well, the sound bite just bit him in the butt with his recent bad taste "joke", as well as the Milo Yiannopoulos fiasco. Maybe he will learn something from it. Or maybe controversy is just great for ratings, so "fool speed ahead, captain!"
The trench warfare between the "Right" and "Left" is generating much more heat than light, and more casualties than progress. Sports, Politics, and War. Survival of the fittest! Are you for the blue team or the red one? Rah! Rah! Rah! The merry-go-round is a fun ride... if you are not expecting to do more than go around in circles. The politicians (and the rest of the status quo) keep us divided and conquered. The guiding principle seems to be something along the lines of "if something is important, it worth fighting for" and "desperate times call for desperate measures". But the liberal has much more in common with his/her conservative next door neighbor than with some billionaire leader. (btw, when/how did Donald Trump ever become of voice of the common man? I can't help but picture an episode of The Simpsons in which a politically campaigning Mr. Burns dines with Homer and family, bearly masking his contempt. Not saying Lady HRC Macbeth would have been much different :-O ). It could make one wonder if political party affiliation and/or identification with an ideological "side" is contrary to the Philosophical ideal, as exemplified by Socrates and others. To identify with an ideology risks turning a blind eye to the inevitable contradictions and shortcomings every ideology has. The symbolic bird of philosophical pursuits is not the ostrich, but the owl. And one cannot afford blindness in dark and confusing times.
I found this story very encouraging: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/06/third-london-attacker-named-as-imams-refuse-to-perform-funeral-rites.html
Yes, saw that! Very encouraging and somewhat surprising to me. But then again i am no expert on Muslims. Though the moderate Muslim must feel like they are getting heat from every side, one could imagine.
What is appealing about Noam Chomsky (to me, imho) among other things, is his old school debating manner, for lack of a better description. The ability to be civil, rational, and almost affable while offering the most scathing critique of national policy and leaders, no matter what party.
It's true. The tone of his voice doesn't reveal the depths of emotion implied by his words.
Reply to Mongrel I've no doubt that his drooling followers pinned that label on him. In any event, I don't wish to say he isn't or hasn't been important, but that his politics, to which he devotes most of his time, is particularly loathsome.
...his politics, to which he devotes most of his time, is particularly loathsome.
"Loathsome" is quite a strong word, meaning vile and reprehensible, as you surely know. All humans are fallible and prone to mistakes. Would you care to elaborate or requalify your comment? Not sure what you are referring, in general. Thanks!
Reply to Thorongil
Ok. Thanks for the reading material. Always good to get another point of view.
But while I'm busy reading that, would you care to provide an particular example of Chomsky's words that YOU find loathsome? Or if you submitted an article to that book, let us know! Don't be modest! ;)
Reply to 0 thru 9 Nothing in particular, unless you want me to go hunting for quotes. I might also note that I used to be a brainless Chomsky admirer myself, having watched many of his lectures and talks and read many of his articles.
I've barely heard anything about Chomsky, honestly now. Who the hell is that?
Some guy who published some theories about linguistics. Can anyone tell me why I should give a damn about him? Not like there's much use in quibbling with words - sounds to me like another white hat academic who has no clue of anything else. Not to mention that it sounds like he just translated Kant from metaphysics into biology - yeah, Hume was wrong, the mind ain't a tabula rasa - big deal.
Reply to Thorongil
Thank you for your reply. I would be interested to read what you thought to be his weakest point, or somewhere you think he crossed the line of decency or factuality. I am no Chomsky expert. And i am an apologist for no one, except myself. Ask my wife- I'm apologizing all day long! :D
Reply to 0 thru 9 I already linked a book that does that. As a general comment, I can say that he's one of those guys who thinks that resistance to terrorism, however ineptly undertaken, is the primary cause of terrorism. He generally finds the US and Western civilization repulsive, which is itself a repulsive opinion to me. There's not much more for me to say.
Reply to Thorongil
Ok, thanks. Fair enough. Perhaps he has made a second career out of pointing out that the Emperor's fly is open. And if the entire empire is without clothing, it just might be because wages are too low and taxes are too high.
Reply to 0 thru 9 He goes further than mild critique. His opinion is that all human governments up to this point have been immoral. He doesn't offer any alternative other than: "Be moral."
I think you have to look at his history to get why there's no point in trying to preach to him. He remembers WW2. He saw the whole Cold War. He was shaped by a period of time during which there was pessimism about there being any future at all for humanity.
If I had a chance to chat with him, I wouldn't say anything. I'd just listen.
That's very surprising. He's a well known person, even outside of academia.
I've heard his name that's for sure, but I listened to a few videos and found that the guy has nothing interesting to say. He's a specialist in a boring niche that is of no interest to anyone except specialists. Like many PhD students today. Their areas of focus are so specific and detailed that they don't interest anyone except other specialists.
Chomsky does have some common liberal-leftist memes that he spews, but other than being a mouthpiece for the status quo, I don't see much else.
Reply to Agustino
Well, i'm more familiar with and interested in his political, rather than scholarly, writing. Big words frighten and confuse me. But Mr. Chomsky is still working away, nearing 90 years old. We should be so lucky. Check out any of his recent interviews, or his past essays or lectures. I would not expect you to be a fan necessarily, since he is on the far left by his own admission. But i'd be curious to hear your response to his work.
@Agustino if he matters so little to you, why do you insist on talking about him? Why do you think anyone here gives a fuck that you don't like him or know much about him? Honestly, Gus, you're such a bloody fool sometimes.
Why do you think anyone here gives a fuck that you don't like him or know much about him?
I don't care if you give a fuck, I just stated my views. You know, sharing what we believe is part of being human. But clearly you bothered to respond, so you do give a fuck.
Done! Okay before anyone starts complaining how did you watch a 21 min video in 10mins and other nonsense - MAGIC! I watch at 2x the speed.
Okay so:
Republican Party Is the Most Dangerous Organisation in History
He repeated this exact statement word for word quite a few times. It's actually starting to sound true with all that repetition. But let's be serious.
• Republican Party isn't unified under Trump - there's a lot of anti-Trump movements within RP
• We are not sure if we are headed towards an environmental catastrophy at all. The Earth has many self-regulating mechanisms, many that we probably don't know about. For example, there was a time when the whole planet froze. Scientists were scratching their heads how it could ever unfreeze. The answer was that the volcanoes released greenhouse gas that became trapped, and slowly warmed the planet back again. (read about this and similar things:
)
• Environmental fears are overblown. I agree we ought to be careful and prudent - but unlikely that we'll fuck up the Earth.
Nuclear Threat and Minute Hand to Midnight
Even if we started dropping a few nuclear bombs, we would not destroy the Earth.
The Midnight hand is nothing but fear producing sensationalism, which sells. Making people afraid is a good way to get them to listen (and buy the right products).
In reality, we'd have a very hard time destroying the Earth. Our hubris has become so large that we're overestimating human capacities by a long shot.
North Korea
Even NC admits that it's unlikely Trump would attack.
It is insane that he sympathises with one of the most brutal regimes in history.
Overall Comments
White hat talk without much actual practical understanding of affairs. It's typical of intellectuals to overestimate challenges and make a fuss out of ultimately insignificant things. It's a way for them to convince the rest of us that they actually know their shit.
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media is almost THREE HOURS LONG! But you're tough, you can take it. This much awarded film (backed by the National Film Board of Canada) is a nice, more impressionistic piece. I've heard Chomsky speak several times, shook his hand, and asked him a question: "What kind of actions do you suggest in response to the problems you have so clearly identified?"
"I won't make those suggestions. That is for [the plural] you to decide." Check in at 1:32:00
Reply to Agustino Yes, these things are possible, as evidenced by people who have gained that amount of money and by people who have become like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But there is no such evidence of people who have gotten in touch with God, which is on par with claims of getting in touch with Big Foot, unless you just mean something different, quite ordinary and uncontroversial by that.
But there is no such evidence of people who have gotten in touch with God, which is on par with claims of getting in touch with Big Foot, unless you just mean something different, quite ordinary and uncontroversial by that.
Wawawiwa where the hell did that come from now? :-O That's for a different thread, but fine, I'll bite your bone.
Why do you think so? Religious testimonies ABOUND - just like weight loss stories, stories of making money quickly, building a sexy body that ehm girls like, and so forth. All you have to do is go on youtube and type "Christian testimony". You'll see many people who have seen their lives transformed (or at least claim so - it's up to you to explain why they would make such claims if there was nothing there in the first place).
For example (this was recommended by a Catholic friend - note that I'm not Catholic, and in fact I haven't watched it myself either lol):
I have. I see that he claims they're not merely academic exercises, you're primarily responsible for the consequences of your actions not those of others (which I happen to agree with), etc. But to understand it properly I'll have to listen to the whole thing. That's not a problem, it will get done sometime. It's just 1.5 hours since I listen at 2x speed, and I'll multitask it.
Done! Okay before anyone starts complaining how did you watch a 21 min video in 10mins and other nonsense - MAGIC! I watch at 2x the speed.
Interesting. Back in the 1970s 3M came out with a "speech compressor". It didn't play the tapes at twice the speed, it chopped out micro-seconds bits so that one could hear a lecture in say 1/3 less time at a normal pitch. Much more than that and the sound quality started to degrade. We used it for review courses in CPA and Bar Exams. At the time, it was a novel advance. The technology to concurrently speed up sound (let alone video) and keep the pitch normal either didn't exist yet or it was way, way too expensive for a library product.
Occasionally one still hears recorded messages compressed with this technology--like when they give you the fine print in audio.
Reply to Agustino Chomsky always rubs me up the wrong way. It might be the way he claims to be simply reporting the neutral facts of the matter, when he obviously has a political agenda. Nothing wrong with having an agenda, but be honest about it. When he says things such as that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organisation in human history--and that's very typical--he always seems to want to deny he's indulging in rhetoric or polemic, shrugging his shoulders saying "you only have to look at the facts".
NC means "North Carolina". Maybe you mean "NK". It's not out of the question that Trump would attack North Carolina, but it seems unlikely.
It does seem reasonable that we get our own house in order before going out and invading others. Until we're able to reunite North and South Carolina, I don't think we need to be trying to reunite North and South Korea.
I do wonder, though, if we should create a demilitarized zone between north South Carolina and south North Carolina and whether it should extend fully east to west along north South Carolina and east to west south North Carolina. What's interesting is that part of North Carolina is south of South Carolina, meaning you'd have to travel north in south North Carolina to reach north South Carolina. All of this north south east west confusion would be eliminated, of course, if we reunited North and South Carolina into a single state that I would suggest be simply called South Carolina, retaining the character of that state, as it was, after Delaware, the first in freedom, if one considers secession an emancipatory act, as, to be sure, emancipation is an ironic term, to say the least, of South Carolina's intentions..
Interesting. Back in the 1970s 3M came out with a "speech compressor". It didn't play the tapes at twice the speed, it chopped out micro-seconds bits so that one could hear a lecture in say 1/3 less time. Much more than that and the sound quality started to degrade. We used it for review courses in CPA and Bar Exams. At the time, it was a novel advance. The technology to concurrently speed up sound (let alone video) and keep the pitch normal either didn't exist yet or it was way, way too expensive for a library product.
Well yeah it's something that I just found out that I have to do. There's just too much to do, so keeping up with everything requires speed. My work also involves accessing a lot of online material when needed (when there's something new, or I need to check a client's competition - or when I'm just expanding my knowledge) so I have to wizz through things pretty fast. There's just too much information to keep up with otherwise. This 2x speed has been a life saver for me. It takes a bit of getting used to in the beginning (sound is indeed a bit worse), but it's highly needed.
I think actually many people aren't aware of this possibility of speeding things up actually. It's actually helped me absorb philosophical content much faster too - those books that you can get audio on, I always bump it up in speed now. Oh and recently I've listened to a few Joel Osteen sermons at 2x the speed while working >:O not bad. They'd be unbearable at this point to me at normal speed, but at 2x speed it was enough to give me a quick idea about the guy.
It's one of the things that I hate ultimately but - I find out I'm multitasking everything these days, even eating... Our society is too fast and speedy, but there's nothing I can do about it.
Ah, I see. The "Raid torch." Hold very long lighted match in-between you and your enemy, spray Raid in their direction over said lighted match, producing a flame throwing effect, and incinerate victim.
In the 1980s, while at college, I attended some free seminar where they'd play records backwards and insist that Satanic messages could be heard. I didn't hear them so well even when played backwards, and I wondered if my brain were able to hear frontwards talk and understand it backwards anyway. I'm not sure I can do that. What I do know is that Led Zeppelin had a tremendous amount of Satanic backwards talk in it.
I'm in the film. I play one of the two dogs who slurp a single strand of spaghetti and we end up kissing. I'm not sure where it is, so you'll have to watch the whole thing.
Ah, I see. The "Raid torch." Hold very long lighted match in-between you and your enemy, spray Raid in their direction over said lighted match, producing a flame throwing effect, and incinerate victim.
RAID is from SC Johnson -- A Family Company
North Carolina's defense minister wants to talk to you. They're sending a helicopter.
Wawawiwa where the hell did that come from now? :-O That's for a different thread, but fine, I'll bite your bone.
Why do you think so? Religious testimonies ABOUND - just like weight loss stories, stories of making money quickly, building a sexy body that ehm girls like, and so forth. All you have to do is go on youtube and type "Christian testimony". You'll see many people who have seen their lives transformed (or at least claim so - it's up to you to explain why they would make such claims if there was nothing there in the first place).
For example (this was recommended by a Catholic friend - note that I'm not Catholic, and in fact I haven't watched it myself either lol):
And how many testimonies of ghosts and fairies and Big Foot and extraterrestrials and the Lock Ness Monster and lizard people and the illuminati and magic and so on and so forth have there been? I guess they're all true as well then.
And how many testimonies of ghosts and fairies and Big Foot and extraterrestrials and the Lock Ness Monster and lizard people and the illuminati and magic and so on and so forth have there been? I guess they're all true as well then.
I can assure you that not as many as there have been religious testimonies. Religion is a core part of humanity, and has been so since the beginning. Lock Ness Monster, lizard people, etc. these are just local phenomena.
So, anecdotal evidence coupled with the fallacies of appealing to the masses and appealing to tradition.
Well it's a fact that religious phenomena are part of being human, ever since humans have been on Earth. The Lochness monster suffers no comparison. So you have to explain why religion has been such a central part of life since the very beginning - why people have felt the need for it, why were they religious in the first place?
LOL - sure but you have to admit that there's a lot more - and I really mean a lot more - to get done in a day to survive today than 100 years ago.
Well, let's go back another 25 years...
Bullshit. You don't have to feed and brush the horses, refill their water trough, and shovel shit out the door. You don't have to take a relatively slow street car into work (or worse, ride a horse). You don't have to wear a suit in a dimly lit, hot, un-air conditioned office with windows open and no screens. You don't have to wait for a call while the operator puts it through. You don't have to send faxes because you have to write out the document, put it into an envelope, address it, find a delivery boy out front, pay him, and hope he doesn't die on the way to the delivery address. You don't have to take a horse-drawn cab across town to see somebody. If you want to travel, you don't have to take a boat which might ram an iceberg and sink. Trains took 3 or 4 days to get from New York to San Francisco. If you got sick you probably would die (leaving a lot of paper work unprocessed). If you wanted to check the news, you had to actually hold the inky crinkly paper thing in your hands, and read it by dim light. Stock quotes came out of your ticker-tape printer and piled up on the floor. If you wanted to know what SC Johnson was selling for, you had to look through the tape to find it.
Now, in 1917 things had gotten somewhat better, but not immensely so. You might be able to take a subway now. (They were crowded from the first day of operation onward.) Speaking of RAID, there wasn't any. You could sprinkle arsenic powder on the floor and hope that kept the cockroaches and other vermin in check. Probably didn't.
Plus, in 1917 there was a war on in Europe which killed all sorts of people for no good reason.
Well it's a fact that religious phenomena are part of being human, ever since humans have been on Earth.
How do you know that? What do you count as religious phenomena, and what religious phenomena were there around the time of the earliest known humans some 195,000 years ago?
So you have to explain why religion has been such a central part of life since the very beginning - why people have felt the need for it, why were they religious in the first place?
Err, no I don't, because that is irrelevant to truth and falsity, right and wrong. Think about slavery as a counterexample in terms of centrality, longevity, people feeling the need for it, etc. People feel the need for myths, magical explanations, fantasy, tradition, rules, practice, customs, ethics, and so on, for various reasons, social and psychological, but that says nothing about whether or not they are true or right or good.
North Carolina's defense minister wants to talk to you. They're sending a helicopter.
I'm available. Did you know you could get high huffing the vapor from whipped cream cans? Haven't tried it myself. NOTE: don't inhale the whipped cream.
President Donald Trump may be the nation's tweeter-in-chief, but some Twitter users say he's violating the First Amendment by blocking people from his feed after they posted scornful comments.
Lawyers for two Twitter users sent the White House a letter Tuesday demanding they be un-blocked from the Republican president's @realDonaldTrump account.
This seems like complete bullshit. Unless there's more to the First Amendment than the "Congress shall make no law..." part then what are these lawyers thinking? Do you guys just pretend that clients have a case just so that you can make some money, @Hanover?
American involvement in the Middle East is explainable not only in terms of its ideological differences with other Western nations, but more so in terms of its political standing in the world. That is, the US doesn't just want to involve itself in these wars, but it also feels it has the duty to and it also has the ability to. That fact that it has sufficient resources and the ability to enter these wars separates it from many of the other European nations who jeer from the sidelines.
And here ladies and gentlemen is the wolf in sheep's clothing. That we assume that we have the right answer and are self-infatuated enough to claim that we know how to provide a solution is ignorance, hypocrisy, and self-grandeur of the highest scale.
Just look at the Middle East for the matter, the most recent example I can provide of the results of having our standards of such high esteem that they need be imposed on others.
I'd argue that American conservativism has a particular issue with the no true Scotsman fallacy, which when applied to situations becomes a pretext for excusing our mistakes in foreign policy. Such behavior is reminiscent of a delusional and insane person (perhaps a pathological gambler?), who is convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong about their own beliefs about the world.
I'm available. Did you know you could get high huffing the vapor from whipped cream cans? Haven't tried it myself. NOTE: don't inhale the whipped cream.
You don't huff it like paint fumes, but you actually inhale the nitrous oxide and receive a temporary high, unlike paint fumes that will rot your brain. NO2 is just laughing gas, that's all.
I think actually many people aren't aware of this possibility of speeding things up actually. It's actually helped me absorb philosophical content much faster too - those books that you can get audio on, I always bump it up in speed now.
The difference between good philosophy and bad philosophy. The good requires two, three, or more readings to understand. The bad you can absorb at double speed.
Reply to Thorongil
At least the last four administrations, yes, including Obama too, which many regard as a continuation of Bush Jr in foreign policy at least.
I think actually many people aren't aware of this possibility of speeding things up actually. It's actually helped me absorb philosophical content much faster too
I actually might actually try this some time. I'm not actually sure, though. ;)
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 07, 2017 at 01:55#754810 likes
Reply to Thorongil
When you go twice as fast, there's twice as much actuality.
Comments (61561)
Remember the domes of privacy they used to show in the movies for private conversations in a military setting?
A SCIF when spelled CORRECTLY (sorry guys its admission overload here) is that concept in modern times.
My youngest indian is choosing colleges and Embry-Riddle is our final contender and so maybe I am just used to hearing the terms but not yet learning how to spell them. Hmmmm....... and now I wonder if he is going to be able to tell me what he will be doing.... my apron strings don't stretch that long.
Me either. I just have to believe that as a successful CEO, he is thinking like one and that is usually two steps beyond where most people stop and accept the results.
:D It was a spelling/TLA error!!!!!!!!!! Geez you guys! Get your minds outta the gutter would you? It's getting crowed down here :D
They are already in a dingy... :D
How I miss Tim Russert. The credibility of "Meet the Press" died when he did. :(
True.
Even if this is true, it isn't good. He needs to think like a successful head of state/government, not a successful CEO. The United States isn't a business.
A CEO as narrowly considered in the Anglo-saxon world as one who maximises shareholder return is successful when he externalises costs or tries to bring them down, usually at the expense of durability of what is produced, environmental cost and the cost to broader society.
The reality is that principles costs money. Do you want a healthy society? Then some form of universal healthcare seems the most cost effective way to go about it. Do you want educated people? Then some form of free education is necessary.
If you leave it to the market, only persons who are sufficiently difficult to replace for a company will be provided with healthcare, because for the companies it's cheaper to let a labourer die and replace him, than give him decent coverage.
If you leave it to the market, people will only be educated to the extent necessary and in the fields that the market needs - not because educated citizens collectively make wiser decision for society at large.
To a degree, I agree with you that the CEO mindset doesn't transcend into the perfect politician. But our professional politicians were screwing things up so royally, that we had to choose which horse to ride for the next 4 years and Trump was our choice.
Having said that not only do I hope we successfully complete this ride, but I hope that when we look for our next ride, we have better choices.
Until then, what many call "chaos" is actually what change looks like when you are in the middle of it. And the "division" that you hear so much about is change as well but on a personal level.
The fact that we are Americans is our strength and when approached, we stand United and that makes all the difference.
As I explained to Michael, there is no perfect politician nor a perfect CEO but I believe that President Trump has the ability to surround himself with people who are smarter than him, each in their respected positions. They supply the information to President Trump, so he can make the difficult decisions CEO's make on a daily basis. Obama was a community leader and never served a full term as anything higher than a Senator before being elected President. So I think it is fair to say that President Trump was more than qualified to apply for the position and we agreed he had what it takes to get the job done when we elected him.
With the limited time I have right now, let me just remind you that government provided Healthcare and basic life essentials, are not the fundamentals of a Capitalistic society. True our government takes care of those who qualify for Government Aid, as a result of medical condition or poverty wages as well as our aged and infirmed. But that is not something we provide for healthy workers, during their working years of their lives. I think you are suggesting we become a Socialist society or some hybrid the two.
I'm suggesting that if you prefer cash over people, people are going to die.
It is not that we prefer cash over people Benkei, as American's we are a very empathetic society. It is the way we go about providing medical care, in a consumer based society and it is far from perfect. Personally, I am not a fan of what happened in this last decade to our medical profession but what is done is done. There is no reversing the damage the implementation of the "ACA" has caused in the actual structure in how care is delivered. Doctor's in private practice fled to the umbrella of a for profit hospital/care companies or to the University Medical Centers, for protection of the cattle call that was about to leave their private practice and head to the care centers that the ACA would approve. The problem is that here in Arizona, we had one choice of Insurance companies on the ACA, which is not a marketplace but rather a monopoly on our medical care options. And before the ONE option in Arizona pulled out, for a family of four, the purchase of the premium was $2,400 a month, with an annual individual deductible of $5k per person with a $20k family cap.
If you take the time to do the math, you will realize that the slip of the tongue, Obama made over a decade ago, in his vision of a "redistribution of wealth" was one of his greatest achievements. He single handedly gutted the middle class, with us having to pay the insurance rates I explained above or be fined by the IRS.
Health insurance, just like any insurance you purchase is a roll of the dice, for both the consumer and the provider and the odds right now are not in the consumers favor.
I don't really have time to get into the weeds of medical costs being inflated to the point that a single Tylenol in the hospital can cost $10.00, when you can walk into a drug store and purchase 200 tablets for less than $10.00. The bottom line is there is no consistency in the cost of care across the nation, so you may be able to get knee surgery in Idaho for half the price of what you would pay in Texas for the exact same procedure. Until we can purchase insurance across state lines, we will never solve this problem, unless we go to an all cash practice.
It already is run like an all cash practice in the sense that if you have insurance, the hospital will bill the insurance $5k for a procedure and the insurance company reduces the acceptable payout by 75% and the hospital accepts that 25% as payment in full. If you have no health insurance, the hospital will work with you by reducing your bill by 75% for that same $5k procedure and a payment plan that you can afford.
It's not a reasonable or a sustainable model of medical care but the move back to Doctor dictated care is only for the wealthy patient who can afford boutique like health care.
You need an NHS.
Albeit not one that runs on Windows XP...
I'm covered in the entire world for unforeseen, emergency care for those things covered by basic Dutch healthcare. It's easy for a health insurance company to do. I pay about 3000 USD for that coverage for the entire year for a family of three and have a personal risk of up to 400 USD a year per person, except our youngest - for her the risk is set at 0 EUR. Obviously, that's not the whole story because you would have to compare coverage as well.
Our system doesn't allow an insurer to refuse an insured when this person moves from one insurer to the next. Prior conditions, provided they have been properly disclosed when they became apparant, are not a condition to refuse pay outs. It's also mandatory for people to get insured and plenty of competition. The fact that Arizona had only one insurer, seems to suggest there are some serious barriers to entry to the market - or there's collusion.
Geographic segregation benefits the insurance companies and healthcare providers as it avoids price competition across state borders between healthcare providers, allowing insurance companies to charge higher premiums in "expensive" states. Profits are usually a percentage mark-up on such actual costs.
In any case, come to the Netherlands and benefit from social benefits. Go to work worry free whether you can pay medical bills or get your pants sued off of you.
Maybe it's just not profitable for the carrier so they go to states where they can make more money.
Or, maybe the one carrier model is the only one that can make financial sense due the risks involved, not just locally, nationally.
Your immigration laws are too strict.
Not necessary as long as you find a job in the Netherlands. There's a NY lawyer working for Simmons & Simmons in Amsterdam. Shouldn't be too hard.
And you didn't answer the question really. I wasn't interested in whether sponsorship was necessary. I wanted to know if you'd sponsor me. It was a hypothetical testing your kindness, but I think I got my answer.
Is Holland anxious to get agéd asylum seeks from the US? At 70, a long-way-from-the-cradle-and-pretty-close-to-the-grave benefit program would come in handy. I'm seeking asylum from oppression, of course. I can't stand Trump and the liberals are either ineffective or have increasingly screwy identity obsessions, so I'm suffering greatly.
I like vaping it, less nasty stuff in vapor & no mess, it does not smell, so it is suitable for use just about anywhere.
The point being that if they're now allowing over the counter sale of basically a pharmaceutical, why create this odd limitation to just marijuana? What was once specially prohibited now has become specially available.
It's hard to believe that the object of the legalize pot movement was to make THC laced gummy bears generally available.
The argument as you first understood it is not the argument that I make, and I've ridiculed others for making it. It makes a fallacious appeal to nature. The argument that I make is about liberty, recreation and consistency, and has nothing to do with whether or not it's natural.
Probably wasn't. It'd just be an unintended consequence of a vague regulation.
Can't speak for the U.S., but the Lib Dem manifesto specifically says that there will be limits on potency (much like there's limits on the strength of alcohol).
No, Jägerbombs.
Hmm, Jägerbomb jello shots...
https://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org/
"The Pirates of: The Pirates of the Caribbean; Paid Ransomers Leak No Tales?"
This comes on the heels of a ransomware attack which encrypted the hard drives of thousands of computers across the globe which used an exploit contained in the NSA hacking kit leaks from a few months ago.
So the ransomers are demanding that Disney pay a huge sum of cash to the hackers who stole the upcoming pirates movie (ten days until release), and so far word is Disney isn't planning on paying.
Personally I wouldn't pay either otherwise it incentivizes more of the same theft for ransom. But this marks a very interesting development in the new world of digital media.
So.. I think it's probably karma.
No! It can't be!
The Caribbean was all adorable and eccentric swashbucklers! :D
Have you seen the show "Black Sails"? It goes fairly in-depth into colonial era slavery. It's like PoTC but realistic, and far better in my opinion.
No, I haven't seen Black Sails. It's probably on the Roku somewhere.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39973864
Interesting article about her and her hair, here[/url]
She can finally let it grow out.
Ah, but I knew that you knew.
It's really not that hard, is it?
*Being sad and all that it did.*
Oh, I've been watching it, but I haven't watched the last one or two probably. I ought to do that if I have time laters.
1) If I paid my child's tuition to attend Notre Dame University AND they decided to walk out on the VP of the USA? I wouldn't just be livid but I would have been one of the folks BOOING the students as they slunk out in peaceful protest.
2) In an HR position? I would do my research if a Notre Dame graduate applied for a job to see what kind of respect they showed their guest, regardless of their personal opinion of that guest. Because in the real world, you often have to smile and be pleasant when you really feel like telling a person off.
Is this really true, you can get the hospital to reduce your bill by 75%?
Why?
Yes. What the hospital bills out is their established price but what they accept is a reduction that is considered "reasonable and customary" which works out to be about 75%. If you don't have insurance, you are your own advocate that remains steadfast in the knowledge of what a "reasonable and customary" charge is and demand that is the cost you should be responsible for.
Example out of Wall Street Journal:
"Say the insurer has set its
reasonable-and-customary rate for this
type of surgery at $1,250, well below the
$5,000 actually charged. Less the worker's
$1,000 deductible, the insurer would pay
out $200, or 80%, of the remaining $250.
The injured worker then is responsible for
the remaining balance of $4,800 – with
the insurer paying just four percent of the
total bill."
As you can see, if the hospital offers "reasonable and customary" reductions to the insurance company, then they certainly can offer you, as a cash patient, the same reduction but you have to demand it, nicely of course. Once you have negotiated the reduction to what is considered "reasonable and customary" you can make a payment on a pending bill, as low as $10.00 a month to the hospital to keep you out of collections. Even if you will never live to pay your bill of at that rate, they cannot send you to collections of any kind because you are making a monthly "good faith payment" and paying all you are able.
As an aside, if your medical bills do wind up in collections, those collections do not impact your FICA score the same way they did 10 years ago. A "good faith payment" and pleasant communications is the way to stay out of collections.
If I paid the tuition and fees at University of Notre Dame which are $46,237 without financial aid. With room, board, and other fees combined, the total cost of attendance is $62,461 a year?
It is OUR day not just his. (L)
Now, if he alone took out student loans, paid the same annual tuition and decided to walk out? I would text him to hold a table for us for the after party while we stayed at the commencement address. 8-)
Do you pay for him to listen to Mike Pence? Wouldn't that be a waste of your money? Why is not listening to Mike Pence an end of "your" day as a family?
I didn't even show up to my graduation ceremony. Just had my degree posted to me.
Blimey Tiff, I was a student in the 1960's. Then we really knew how to walk out of things. And parental disapproval would have made us feel even more damn right. I think that's how it is at some stages of your life :)
I 've heard of cases where people have asked to pay the same amount as the insurance company is allowed to pay, for the same procedure, and were refused. I've never heard of the hospital accepting such a request. If it's true that you could "demand it", and the hospital would be obliged to give it to you, then it would be illegal for the hospital to charge more to the cash paying patient than to the insurance company. But it's not illegal, and there appears to be very little incentive for the hospital to accept such a demand, even if it's done nicely. The incentive is directed toward the cash paying patient to buy expensive insurance, to avoid the ridiculously inflated hospital bills.
Tiff, I take it you were likewise disturbed by the hecklers who yelled at Obama when he spoke at Notre Dame in 2009? Indeed, I would expect you were more disturbed by it, as yelling during a speech is more disruptive than "slinking out in peaceful protest."
I take it you were also disturbed by Arizona State University's initial decision not to confer an honorary degree on Obama when he spoke there (also in 2009), saying that he was devoid of accomplishments? Did that decision reflect the need to pay courtesy to your guests, even when you feel like "telling them off"?
It's a failing of character.
This was about half a mile from the site of an IRA bomb in the 1990's, the last big explosion on the mainland before the peace process.
I've got to say, I sometimes think of myself as too sympathetic to the other fellow's point of view, but I can't find any sympathy in me for such an act. In what way are the young fans of Ariana Grande in any kind of war with anyone? - And it's sad what tiny things it does to you: I found myself thinking, did I see anyone Asian acting oddly?
I saw Leonard Cohen at the Arena a few years ago. Listening to his melancholy songs this morning. 'You want it darker?'
Sure. But I don't think Arkady was calling Tiff out for telling a falsehood. It's likely true that she "wouldn't just be livid but ... would have been one of the folks BOOING the students as they slunk out in peaceful protest". He's simply insinuating that she wouldn't have felt the same way were it Obama giving a speech. Which then suggests that her values are hypocritical (or discriminate based on political affiliation).
I wasn't aware that questions could be ad-hom. I think you need a basic course in logic (is that ad-hom, too? Please let me know). In any event, whether or not there was hypocrisy, my question is a valid one. People generally seem outraged when their party is adversely treated and oddly complacent when the other party is so treated (you may know something about that - is that ad-hom number 2?). Perhaps Tiff is an exception (though, honestly, I'm not holding my breath).
Now you are.
Well, thanks for filling me in, then. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle (as GI Joe used to tell me).
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFthiZ_Jftc[/video]
Be sarcastic, but it doesn't change the fact that "Why are you being an idiot?" is just as much an ad hom is "you're an idiot" (and, no, I'm not calling you an idiot; It's just an example).
And my question was nothing of the sort: I didn't say "why are you a hypocrite, Tiff?" She may well have been likewise disturbed by Obama's treatment at ND and ASU, and my question allowed for that possibility. However, if I had to place a bet on it, I would go with "not disturbed."
Ironically, you are exhibiting the very sort of behavior which is at issue here, as, had someone decried what they perceived to be adverse or unfair treatment towards Obama, and another poster asked them if they were likewise disturbed when Trump was treated in a similar fashion, you wouldn't have said "boo" about poster #2's question.
You are put off by what you perceive to be an insinuation of hypocrisy in conservatives, but you would be just fine with a line of questioning which potentially exposed hypocrisy in liberals.
Just thought I'd leave this here:
Quoting Hanover
No, I did not pay for my child to listen to Vice President Pence. But I did raise my children to be respectful of other's, even in the event that they do not agree with them. If those walkouts did not agree with Vice President Pence speaking, they knew well enough in advance to have enough respect, to choose not to attend the commencement.
But no, that common level of respect, that decency of decorum is not taught in school and nor do I think it should have to be because it starts from the home and carries onward.
As I stated, if my child had paid his own way thru school and he chose to walk out? I would text him to hold a table, until WE were done showing the respect that our children should know to do as well, if we raised them right.
There is a degree of accountability when it comes to what kind of moral, ethical and graceful compass you instill in your children and for that, I am and always will be their Mother and in my opinion, their behavior is a direct reflection on how they were raised, for better or for worse. So if I had paid and they walked out while I stayed, it wouldn't ruin our day but that is not to say there wouldn't be hell to pay for such a disrespectful choice of behavior.
If my daughter walked out, at least I'd know she had conviction. I wouldn't be happy she'd sit through something she strongly disagrees with or would be "forced" to listen to someone who has negative browny points with her.
(Y)
But not irrelevant to Arkady's comment to which I responded.
I am not sure how showing respect for someone, whether we like them or not, is showing a lack of personal conviction but that is your circle to square.
Where you would praise your daughter for walking out based on her convictions, I would praise my son for being able to maintain his composure, showing respect and handling himself like the young gentleman he has been raised to be.
That is a very good question Mongrel, one that is testing my long held belief that I know better than to place the responsibility of my expectations on anyone other than myself. For I have learned through too many disappointments, that by misplacing my expectations onto someone else, I am setting myself up to be disappointed. Instead, I usually embrace the idea that with no expectations of others, I am rarely, if ever, disappointed in how something turns out and on occasion I am pleasantly surprised by the actions of others.
But now you have me wondering why, that personally held philosophy, is not being applied to my children. It is entirely possible that I am expecting him to conduct himself properly, my expectation, until he is off on his own, paying his own bills.
As a side note, yesterday afternoon, my youngest indian received his letter of acceptance to the one school he wishes to attend and that is Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University . Needless to say we are extremely proud of the him and all the work he has put in, to achieve the goal of becoming a Riddler. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University where it really is Rocket Science!
While you're paying his bills, you want him to do what you would do. Once he can pay his own bills, then you will recognize that he is a separate individual capable to making his own decisions.
I just sat through 2.5 hours of speechifying regarding error prevention (in the healthcare setting). One of the topics was: "Why do people fail to speak out when they notice that something is wrong?"
What sort of protest would you find acceptable for a new college grad?
This is a very neurotic way to go about things. First of all, I think a child should be treated like a partnership - not like a slave. In a partnership there are give and takes. There's no "you want him to do this" and that's the end. You need him for the future, he's his own person - you don't want to alienate him by being an ass. (furthermore, he may rightfully choose not to go to college in the first place if you're going to be such an ass about it - or be vengeful about it in the future)
It's much more effective to make him feel indebted to you. Grandmothers are very effective at doing this. A bright red letter pops in your mail, your granny's handwriting on it. You flip it open, read how much she misses you because you haven't visited lately, and boom - you feel guilty and schedule your next visit ;)
Just some platitudes that more recent generations find annoying.
A child should be treated neither like a partner nor a slave, but like a child.
That's not what I said.
And you forget the paragraphs before that on the issue whether we should accord everyone with respect and whether we should expect that in situations from people who had no say on who shows up and should then be forced to choose between not attending at all or this. The speaker and speakees aren't on the same level here, one sends, the other is condemned to listen; there's no equality.
So again; Ancona? Yes, no, why?
Personally, I'd hope everybody stands up and walks out on a speech by a known racist. I'm not saying I would walk out on Pence but I certainly recognise that some people think he's bad enough that they cannot in good conscience remain seated. Instead of saying they're disrespectful (which is just another way of dismissing their voice) we can respect their choices and their silent voices.
Sure, except now everyone on the right is known as a racist by the left.
And every Muslim is known as a terrorist by the right. ;)
Well a "child" who goes to college isn't exactly a child anymore. He should be treated like an adult. Earning money right away shouldn't be a requirement for decent treatment. Or else, when the "child" does start earning money big time, you may see $0 of it. People are often stupid - they underestimate their reliance on others, and put too much emphasis on current conditions, and too little on future contingencies. What if you as a parent end up having ALS and being stuck to a bed - who will take care of you then, if not your child? This murderous parenting attitude of "treat him like a child" is very prevalent, and does more harm than good to both parents and children by fostering hatred between them. And no, good intentions don't cut it. Good intentions coupled with stupidity are worse than bad intentions coupled with indifference.
Apart from the fact this has little to do with what I said, this is a caricature as well.
That said, what is "the right" in your opinion? The alt-right is pretty xenophobic in practise. Social and cultural conservatism tend towards discrimination as a logical consequence of their aim to maintain a status quo (or even move backwards). There's an issue with progressives, because those people are for change. But also with people too different to be considered part of their social or cultural "ideal". This could be gays, hispanics, blacks or muslims or whatever, depending on what they believe. As a result, it is much more likely that racists identify themselves as "right" instead of "left" but you can't conclude from that, that the "right" is racist.
We don't need no thought control.
>:O Yes, if you define education as what you learn in school (as that song does, if i remember their video correctly :P )
But you definitely need self-education, studying and applying things you learn by yourself.
Libraries lose a quarter of staff as hundreds close.
Thanks Obama.
Hey! Socrates! Leave those kids alone!
Why not? That's the job. To create a social mechanism/body (the family) which takes care of itself in perpetuity. We are interdependent - so we must acknowledge our interdependence and arrange things such that all of us are safe and can support each other if necessary.
Okay, I agree with that. But starting from this point, what's the best way to strengthen this emotional attachment? Isn't it to treat the child, when you are the parent, as an equally valuable and useful member of the family, entitled to bring his own independence to the game? That's the best way to ensure emotional attachment. Certainly making a fuss about you giving money and him having to obey etc. ain't gonna help. All that tells the child is that "my parent is a fucking asshole, best to get rid of him as soon as possible".
Tomorrow is going to be another very hot, very busy, stressful day at work. Can't wait.
Just unbutton that plaid shirt, bb.
Not with Kant you will.
I did watch half the first episode of that but don't get the attraction or what's new about it. It's slapstick, right? Anyway, as @Hanover would say, cartoons are for kids and you probably only watch them because having been treated like an adult when you were a kid, you've now decided to balance things by treating yourself like a kid when you're an adult. This is how liberal parenting destroys lives.
I'll return it to Hanover then. He loves things being shoved in his mailbox. O:)
Hmm, maybe we should ask it directly. What art thou, oh @Hanover?
You need to watch more. Like, all of it.
Can you just tell me what happens after the aliens chase them through security and why it's edgy and unique? Pretty please?
All the stuff, and because reasons.
Ah, just the answer I'd expect from one suffering from child-adult adult-child syndrome. :B
Well, in the words of the great Rick Sanchez, "I've got about a thousand memories of your dumb little ass and about six of them are pleasant. The rest is annoying garbage. So why don't you do us both a favor and pull the trigger? Do it! Do it, motherfucker! Pull the fucking trigger!"
I feel a body slam coming on. :(
No, Jesus wouldn't do this...
Yes, Rick and Morty is way better, can't wait for season three. Awabalubdub.
Oh yeah, like the day after april fool's day, when they did the opposite of an April Fool's joke and released the first episode. That was a year and a half since MR poopy butthole said it would be before the next season as well. Had to fool us by keeping their word, and delivering on episode after joking about it.
The body slammer won the election!
'Big Sky', big sick sky.
Must be because journalists are evil and violent multi-millionaires are good. I guess that's in the Bible somewhere.
It's a bit hard to get that spiritual feeling going in here with the kids and all their cartoony talk. Rubadubdub!
Yeah, I agree that cartoons are stupid, unless it's The Family Guy or The Simpsons, and I think the Flintstones were ok way back when.
Body slamming a reporter isn't a bad move. Reporters might be the only ones with lower approval ratings than politicians.
Oh dear... does that cat have any plans to go all ninja on me? I don't plan on having a sword slash me in half anytime soon...
Simpsons did it! If you like The Family Guy, then I don't get why you wouldn't like The American Dad, The South Park or The Rick and Morty. The Simpsons and The Flintstones are too tame and politically correct. Lame in comparison.
Or he could waste some time on The Facebook.
Though, a couple weeks ago that family guy hockeycop joke cracked me up pretty good.
Remember Samurai Pizza Cats? Good times.
Mr. Pickles. Aaaah!
I imagine that it's a generational thing. I've never watched Mr. Pickles, any good? Maybe I'lls checks it out.
Don't worry, I'm good at forgetting.
I take it back... maybe too rich for my blood. Lol.
You thought it was too much too? Good, then I'll be brutal. I watched like not even five minutes of the first episode, and what I gathered is that it's going to be about a non-speaking character having everyone else talk about it constantly, because of its rawly morbid and pointless behavior.
See, that's no fun. Rick and Morty keeps dangly a point and then stripping it away at the end. Making something seem super important, or reoccurring, and then offing it, or simply never mentioning it again. It's intensely clever.
Yup. that's definitely how it's done.
This would be really easy to "download" if it were already in a computer but this will be that conversion from mind to computer input.
Wish me patience and understanding of another generation, something I imagine I will appreciate more later, than I realize now. Isn't that the way it works?
Ever see that movie limitless? That's what happens to me when I sober up.
I hate not being sober.
What's the upsell? Just the books, or does he have some $5,000 seminars like Tony Robbins? >:O
https://jordanbpeterson.com/bible-series/ >:O
https://www.quora.com/I-screwed-up-my-life-Is-it-too-late -> check his answer here, blatantly advertising HIS OWN company self-authoring...
The only success there is to follow in his footsteps. Start a company. Start advertising how you'll revolutionise people's lives and give them what they want. Build a mental movie for them about how great it will be and feel. Put up some videos, and build your reputation as an authority. Repeat.
Seriously, so easy to make money if you have no integrity and are willing to sell shit. This self-help industry is piss easy. Push the right buttons and BAM, SCORED!
(Y)
I just checked him out cause he was mentioned on a youtube channel that I'm pretty sure is stalking me. He said that he only knew one thing. Is that so hard to believer? Can't give him that? Maybe you can do a whole lot with just that.
Your medal's in the mail.
I predict that self-help will become the heroin of the future - it will make some people amazingly wealthy, and everyone else will remain slaves glued to their seminars.
The real "secrets" that people are looking for - those that can truly change their lives - will not be spouted by someone who has massive popularity - quite the contrary, they will be hidden, and known by few.
I'm not personally into self help stuff, if you're worried about my well-being or anything. As I said, I saw him the first time yesterday because of this video:
I like his channel.
Regarding the last video - yes, there is scientific proof that writing (not talking about) past events helps improve your situation. Minimally - but it does.
Look at this last video though. What role does the hypnotic music play? What's the effect of repeated appeals to science? What's the role of the mental movies that are created by the metaphorical language? What do you feel when you see the images of someone struggling with the boulder, pushing it up the mountain?
1:10 - "you can tell you've mastered things because when you go somewhere and you act, things turn out as you want them" + showing images of someone playing guitar to two smiling girls on holiday. Why? What's the message? What does your mind think about? If you have failed even once to ask a girl out - despite even hundreds of successes after - the video will make you remember it. You haven't mastered it. Look, that time it didn't work out. You're missing out. You're in a bad situation. You're not as good as you can be. That's the message there. Now you're liable to be sold to easily - your pain-point is vivid in your mind.
MAP and MASTER - pushing the right buttons to persuade.
"This will bring you peace, bring you calm. It's so simple - yet so difficult [...] When your demons call out [...] It's time to go to work, work ends [...] decide to play bla bla "
MENTAL MOVIE that you can relate to - you're living it, going through it, feeling it as you're watching. Followed by chemical and scientific explanations to add social proof and authority. This is EXACTLY how a sales pitch must be structured. And the insidious bit is that great salesmanship doesn't sell you something today. It plants the seeds for selling you something tomorrow.
Pull that stick out your ass bro.
Why? :P So you can put it up yours? O:) >:O
No man, you're constantly, perpetually non-stop moralizing.
When you don't get positive feed back from others, you can either accept that, and change, or decide that they're worse than they think, and you're better than they think.
You're growing a monster inside of you. The more you talk about what shit everyone else is, the bigger it gets.
Lol - calm down, I haven't said anyone is shit. I don't know why you get that idea. I'm just using the video you posted as an occasion to list some of my conclusions with regards to self-help. Has nothing to do with you. So why do you take it so personally?
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Wosret
Okay fair enough, but I'm not looking for feedback from people, especially not in a thread like The Shoutbox. And generally speaking, I don't care what others think of me. I don't live for them, I live for myself. Why would I bother to be concerned what X and Y are saying about me? I don't care one iota if I'm better or worse than X or Y thinks. As far as I'm concerned, what they think doesn't determine who I am. I'm not the prisoner of their thinking.
No! Now I have to go write about it in my journal (diaries are for girls).
I asked if I could drive this fully restored, topless 1954 Corvette Coupe and he actually said "Sure". I was flabbergasted because I never expected an okay to do such a thing and it must have been obvious on my face when he asked if I knew how to drive a stick shift? Sure I do! Then I remembered grinding my gears, riding the clutch and once I am above 3rd I am not going back for anything. So I made the safe choice in politely declining, only for today. ;) Kinda fun that he likes to set a carrot and being the work horse I am, I keep moving forward. (Y)
The woman calls back:
'You are in a balloon about 10 meters above the ground. You are between 51 and 52 degrees north latitude and between 5 and 6 degrees west longitude '.
"You are a computer scientist," says the man.
"Indeed, how do you know that?" Asks the woman.
"Well," says the man, "you gave me a technically perfect explanation, but I do not know what to do with that information and still have no idea where I am. In all honesty, you did not help me and it cost me my time. "
"And you're a manager?" Replies the woman.
"Right, how do you know that?"
"Well, you do not know where you are, or where to go. A large amount of air brought you where you are now. You have made a promise that you had no idea how to keep and you expect people who are beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is that you are in exactly the same situation as five minutes ago, except that now it's suddenly my fault."
Quoting Wosret
Quoting Agustino
Can you not self-reflect for a moment and realize that your response to Wosret was exactly what he accused you of?
The writing stuff down thing is legit. Parents who have to spend a lot of time in neonatal intensive care are encouraged to keep journals to stay sane.
Because they want to shut down free expression.
Quoting Mongrel
Because he has risked his job.
I have reflected and my response had nothing to do with it. Show me how my response was the same. My response merely shows I have the sufficient self-esteem required not to be perturbed by what others say of me, whether it is for good or bad. Where am I saying shit about others, as Wosret claimed?
Quoting Thorongil
Well, I'm not sure yet, I've only had time to listen to a few of his things. Anything in particular you'd recommend?
No one cares about your level of self-esteem or whether you were perturbed. No one intended to knock your self esteem, and no one really cared if you were upset. Your response simply declared defiance, with the implication (although more explicit now) that unflappable certainty is of some higher order than actually considering another viewpoint. That is what I took Wosret's objection to your posts to be, and your response was consistent with that objection.
Well I do understand (I think at least) his viewpoint, and I've seen other people in the past express it. But generally it's about someone getting insulted way too easily, as if I had a responsibility not to voice my opinion about things merely because others feel insecure about hearing a critical opinion about something they do - as if that somehow was a criticism of them as people.
So yes, I am defiant to that, because I simply don't see why anyone should be upset about what others think. I'm not going to get upset if Wosret or anyone else thinks what I listen to is stupid or whatever.
Quoting Hanover
Okay, I see. I never understood his objection to be this though. It seems that he was more concerned that I somehow insulted him by critiquing the video he posted. Or I somehow told him it's not good to watch it. I did neither of those.
Are you saying that the people who run Canadian universities are fiercely committed to shutting down freedom of expression?
Freedom where? Just on the campuses? Or all across Canada?
Many administrators, professors, and students are, yes.
Quoting Mongrel
Both in a way. There are a couple bills he has objected to, one which would apply to Ontario and the other to Canada as a whole. As for campuses, I believe he's already been blocked from speaking at a couple, while at those he has spoken, the attempt has been made to disrupt his talks.
What do you think their agenda is? What's behind it?
Quoting Thorongil
Bills related to freedom of expression? Were these private universities? Or state funded ones?
Undoubtedly power.
Quoting Mongrel
They are bills that could severely curtail freedom of expression, yes, especially in light of the fact that Canada has these things called Social Justice Tribunals (I kid you not!).
Quoting Mongrel
He's been to both.
I'm trying to grasp what kind of power a university administrator can actually enjoy. Money is power. Are they getting kick-backs from politicians or businesses? Or is it more of a perceived power (which can be just as attractive as real power, I think.)
Quoting Thorongil
I'll have to look that up... unless you could explain what it is.
Quoting Thorongil
So the private university won't ping a freedom of expression concern. A private school can employ nuns and have a freakin' rosary hanging from a wall if it wants to. A public institution is a different matter.
Did language evolve several different times?
The administrative class at today's universities has ballooned in size, becoming highly bureaucratized and adopting a corporate model of governance. So too have their salaries ballooned, while the same can't be said of professors, adjuncts, TAs, GAs, etc. Also, being a college president, especially of a big university, gives one access to state politics and I'm sure presidents get kick backs from politicians and vice versa.
:-| Certain administrators, professors, and students do. I don't understand the demand for a conspiracy. At the moment, left-wing activists have a vice grip on the humanities, social sciences, and administrations at many colleges and universities, so they naturally try to muzzle those whom they perceive as disagreeing with them because 1) they can, in many cases, 2) they want to retain or expand their power, and/or 3) they don't value free speech to begin with and prefer being authoritarians.
What does any of this have to do with whether or not you want to meet Bilo?! :s
Some of our elders teach us by showing us what a fucking fool looks like.
I was surprised reading that.
Surprise, is not the appropriate emotion.
Did you mean "typical barbaric Pentecostal atrocity"? Although given that it's legal, better to call it a typical barbaric Floridian atrocity.
"One third of girls in the developing world are married before the age of 18 and 1 in 9 are married before the age of 15" - girls make up almost twice as much of the hundreds of millions of victims of physical, emotional and sexual violence, and are told to cover their wounds by being pretty and keeping their mouths shut. Fuck that.
Ooo Hanover, you are in lock step with how we are doing this inventory and sell off! During the week when we are not inventorying, we are listing on Corvette parts selling sites and when we are further along, we will let his clients and vendors know that our virtual store is open for business and adding inventory daily. In the Fall, we are also planning to attend an antique car swap meet in Pomona CA and another in Bloomington IL.
In the mood for a road trip?
Indeed. I recall the story of how Jesus raped a nine year old girl. It's so gratifying. I turn to that scripture when the world starts to get me down.
True. Obviously I'm jaded.
In any case, I was surprised at the prevalence in the US. It's one thing to disagree about policy; it's quite another when fundamental values aren't shared.
pic.twitter.com/pMAGM1HkWB
[Hide]
So, anyone have any questions for Bilo? >:O
Just to put that into perspective, the UK has a minimum age of 16 requiring parental consent if they are below 18 years of age since 1929.
In the Netherlands it was 15 for women and 18 for men since 1808, which was raised to 16 for women in 1838. In 1985 it was raised to 18 for both partners.
More than half of US states don't have a minimum age. Not really a problem for just Florida then.Quoting TimeLine
(Y)
I think I'm going to enroll my daughter into Muay Thai...
Typical barbaric American atrocity it is, then.
I'd suggest jujutsu. Locks and throws are probably more effective than strikes against a larger opponent.
You have to be at least 16 to marry in Florida.
Except for one choke hold that is.
Without parental consent yes. With parental consent it can be 1.
And what about a striking style like boxing or Muay Thai?
EDIT: found the difference:
(2)?The county court judge of any county in the state may, in the exercise of his or her discretion, issue a license to marry to any male or female under the age of 18 years, upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the parents of a child.
(3)?When the fact of pregnancy is verified by the written statement of a licensed physician, the county court judge of any county in the state may, in his or her discretion, issue a license to marry:
(a)?To any male or female under the age of 18 years upon application of both parties sworn under oath that they are the expectant parents of a child; or
(b)?To any female under the age of 18 years and male over the age of 18 years upon the female’s application sworn under oath that she is an expectant parent.
Not true. Grappling is more effective if the fight ends on the floor (AND you are sufficiently strong - if the other person COMPLETELY overpowers you, then you're dead), most conflicts don't end up like that. If one guy falls to the floor knocked the fuck out then the other has already won.
The trick is to scare the other sufficiently for them to back down fearing injury, before it breaks into a full blown fight.
From here, Florida has an exception that "Younger parties may obtain license in case of pregnancy or birth of child". So if you get a girl younger than 16 pregnant it's legal to marry her.
Just how easy do you think it is to get a court order approving of an 10 yr old girl marrying a 50 yr old man?
Just to avoid you missed it. Florida statute states:
Quoting Florida Statute
That doesn't seem to require any parental consent either.
Parental consent is necessary to have intercourse before age 16 or the parent or guardian can press charges. If charges are pressed by the guardian or parent, against the over 18 person, they will go before the judge and if convicted will be obligated to register as a Sex Offender.
They need parental consent for fortification under the age 16 to begin with.
Yes it is illegal and the parents can press charges.
Against who? Against the 14 year old kid? Or against the 12 year old one? How will they decide who did something illegal? Do both of them get sex offender status?
John 57:3-9
What the hell are you speaking of?! :s
Buuahahahaha
Except some parents don't press charges but press their daughter into marriage instead. And we all know that rape in a marriage isn't possible... For christ's sake. :’(
This seem wrong. According to this, the law only states "A child under 16 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity, regardless of the age of the defendant. A child who is at least 16 years of age and less than 18 years of age cannot consent to sexual activity if the defendant is 24 years of age or older."
Hanover would be better apt to answer this question but either guardian, over either child, could press charges.
-_- you're claiming some BS with regards to Jesus actually.
You should rape a child.
Cite me the passage which says this.
I can see the light you are shedding on the exact age of consent to have sex. I appreciate the clarification.
There is no John 57. It stops at John 21. What is your source?
There is no fucking John 57... :s
Usually statutory rape requires a minimum age of the offender and a maximum age of the victim, so it shouldn't be possible to sue in the event of a 12 year old and a 14 year old.
Do you want to meet Bilo? >:O
Let me get this straight. You're saying that Jesus didn't rape a child?
I'm saying that the Bible verse you quoted doesn't exist.
His or her thumb?
Isaac did marry Rebecca when he was 37 and she was 3. (N)
EDIT: sorry, 40.
But you were speaking of a child being pregnant and THAT was a satisfier in the eyes of the law, to allow a marriage, without the consent of the guardians.
But you admit that Jesus did rape a child.
Also, I just noticed that the minimum age of 9 in the Qu'ran is quite a step up from the Jews and Christian holy books.
Thank God atheists mostly wrote those secular laws... Go atheists!
Have you gone crazy? 'Cause you're acting crazy.
P-zombie, actually.
Why in God's creation would a guardian over a female child cover up that the child had been raped? (N)
I'm sure they have all sorts of reasons. Perhaps they don't want to be involved in a lengthy court case or are happy the rapist has to provide for their child. Or maybe they're just douchebags with little sense for morality.
Can you believe that?
It's very common. Think about why the Catholic church all the way up to the Vatican covered up sexual abuse. There are a lot of reasons for it.
Quoting Mongrel
Mongrel is smoking pot. For SURE! >:O
Are you using a Bong?
Hence the assumption that parents are 'owners' of this responsibility that assumes unequivocal protection of their children as though the rights of children outside of this domestic landscape is somehow non-existent. I am hoping to one day become a permanent carer, meaning that I take on the responsibility of permanently taking care of a child from infancy up until they are legally considered adults whose parents cannot, which is almost like adoption without the ownership, like being in a committed relationship without a wedding ring. The psychology behind permanent care is an attitude of taking responsibility and showing love to someone that you don't 'own' in someway. Why is this sense of ownership allowed that somehow takes away the authority of universal principles of human rights when it comes to children?
Quoting Benkei
Krav Maga. Trust meh.
Does Krav Maga have a flying knee into the groin? I think not. :D
It really doesn't matter tbh. Style is nonsense. Strength is more important than people would like to believe in reality. Sure, people would like to think they can stand up against a 200 pound mugged faced unshaved rapist who lifts weights like a bitch at the gym. The truth? Unlikely they stand a chance.
But yes. You need a modicum of strength at least. Then speed is really important + endurance. Then it's all in the mind. Any style can do it if you train it properly.
I was taught to get in close and force my thumb all the way into the eye socket. There are weapons all over the place. Never go for the genitals. Men reflexively protect that area.
True. I remember trying out holds on a friend who was a very decent swimmer and not much heavier than I was, only about 15 kg. Except for a few specific choke holds I couldn't manage much against him. Arm holds were totally useless as his upper body strength was simply too much. I was going up for a black belt in Judo at the time and he wasn't trained in any martial arts.
Aikido was totally useless.
EDIT: Aikido was useless from an effectiveness point of view. It greatly increased my balance and timing though, which made me more effective in the other martial arts I did.
If you control someone's head, you control his movement. A thumb in the eye is a good start but is easily wrested away from. You're better off putting a thumb in an eye and then using the other hand to maintain the grip by locking the back of the head and then move him to the ground (by directing the head down). And then run.
It's true also that you should never go for genitals in the first instance. After you've poked his eye though, it's probably a good idea. Also because any movement towards his crotch by then can't be seen because your arm is in the way and you're too close so there's no reflexes kicking in. And then run.
A former boyfriend emphasized running after any disabling move. He taught me a bunch of things and completed every lesson with: "and then run."
Quoting Agustino
I am small, so I need to utilise what I have that would be put me at a tactical advantage and people underestimate the intelligence of knowing how to prevent violence from ever occurring in the first place, to deceive by greater ingenuity. Learning to fight is essential in that it helps you overcome your fear of violence - hence get your daughter to learn Krav Maga because it is real fighting - but tactically speaking it is irrelevant when it comes to encountering someone stronger than you. That is why I am a runner.
Quoting Baden
(L)
I'm going to bed.
G'night :)
I'm sorry Tiff, but I find that question offensive. It comes across as a rhetorical denial that it ever happens. but it has happened and it does happen.
There's the answer in this case; "to avoid a messy criminal case", the scandal, in other words. But it's the wrong question, 'why would anyone', when for whatever reason they do. The right question is 'why does the law sanction it, and why do people defend the law, and even begin to excuse it?'
My sick joke earlier was that if if this was a story about Muslims, the moral outrage would be unequivocal, and we would understand that they do it because bad religion has made them bad people, with bad laws.
And that is the case here too. :(
Sure. One ought avoid being self-righteous. As it happens, condemning a crime doesn't require that one assume divine purity of soul.
There are people in Saudi now whose human rights are being violated. It is unutterably vile to suggest that we ignore that fact because evil actions are taking place in Florida.
I don't even know what you're attacking here. We're just talking about a terrible Florida law (and then by extension similar laws in other states).
And I'm curious, what population group is statistically more likely to engage in child marriage?
Undoubtedly there is a lot of shit happening, but the left uses their fake morality to push political agendas of tighter control based on isolated incidents.
Quoting Mongrel
Having a fixed strategy is better than nothing, but it can also be bad. Someone who is somewhat experienced with street fighting will usually discern what you're trying to do from subtle cues - how you're holding your fists, where you're looking, how you're breathing, etc. If they discern your strategy it's not going to work. So there's no "get in close" - either you are there already and surprise them, or otherwise it will be hard.
Also remember this. One solid punch in the chin from someone much stronger than you is all that will take to bring you down. Even if you managed to gouge their eye out, you'll be concomitantly hit by a punch (that's the reflex - dodge / tilt head / shift + hit).
Yeah, I've trained in TKD, Wing Chun, Aikido (from the Far Eastern) and boxing (from Western). All of them have something useful to teach, but real fighting is different.
Quoting Benkei
Okay but that's supposing anyone will stay put or let you grapple them. Your biggest concern is to avoid getting hit first. If it's someone stronger than you, one well placed hit to the face will be enough to completely throw you off-guard, your mind will go in a frenzy, and you won't control the situation anymore.
Which comment(s) are you referring to?
Did you read the NY article I linked to that started this discussion?
Quoting Michael
That's not what unenlightened is doing. He just admitted to bringing up a child marriage case in Florida solely in order to impugn those he perceives as unduly focusing on Muslims who practice it.
Quoting Benkei
unenlightened's.
It's a knee-jerk reaction in opposition to perceived racism. Don't you know that?
I guess you haven't noticed the fact that you're attacking him solely in order to impugn the left i.e. to make a partisan political point. It's like a nervous tic with you.
I'm female, so rape is expected prior to being killed and dumped. Don't teach your daughter that she's helpless.
And your knee jerk reaction in opposition to the opposition was...something to do with Jesus and rape I believe?
Probably.
No, I was correcting his impression about those who focus on Muslim child marriages.
That's probably true. Unfortunately for them, perception doesn't match reality.
As I said.. it's nothing to do with the principles of leftism. It's a psychological issue.
Don't be a coward. Admit you were using his comments to make a partisan attack on the left. It's obvious anyway.
Certainly nothing to do with whose political team we're on. As if either the right or the left has a monopoly on virtue.
It was a point about the truth. It may have been political in addition to being true, but that wasn't its intended purpose.
The team vibe comes because people polarize each other. I treat you like a blob of X, so you treat me like a blob of anti-X.
Theoretically, you can unwind that by actually listening to what somebody is saying.
Are there cases where people are so eager to fight racism that they end up condoning victimization? Yes. Is that what Thorongil was talking about?
Why not ask him instead of treating him like Blob-whatever?
Well, according to this, 84% of the 12 million child marriages in India were Hindu, with 11% Muslim. And according to this, 80% of Indians are Hindu and 14% Muslim. So Hindus have a disproportionate number of child marriages in India.
My primary interest in this conversation is to learn more about the child marriage situation in Florida. That's not going to happen if it becomes a left-right thing. And it absolutely shouldn't be. Of all the things we should be able to agree on...
Many leftists are not fans of Western civilization. They would prefer to destroy it and replace it with something else (usually some flavor of Marxist utopia). Many Muslims don't like the West either, hence, they form an alliance of convenience, so I don't think it's merely psychological.
Oh. Benkei is your resource, then.
Alliance of convenience? How old were you when 911 happened?
I'm sure he'll appreciate the vote of confidence. I would like to spread my wings a bit further though. The only thing I'm not interested in listening to is a segue-way into partisanship. But, hey, people will do what they will do.
If you say so. Although the Jesus rape thing has somewhat coloured my perception of your judgement. ;)
What a laugh. Your pal unenlightened has already admitted that he's not interested in merely "learning more about the child marriage situation in Florida." He used it to make false allegations about those who are concerned about child marriage among Muslims. He was the one who suggested that those who are thus concerned think it less morally outrageous than when Christians practice it. I called him out for making such an underhanded smear, and now you're condemning me and not him. Amazing, Baden. Truly amazing.
Yes, you're the hero here, obviously.
It's not worth responding to. People can read.
Lol, I don't need jujitsu moves when someone attacks me with a feather duster.
Sunnis believe the Prophet had sex with a nine year old girl. This locks them in religiously speaking to a certain perspective on what an American would call child molestation. (Please don't lecture me about how Sunnis can alter this situation. They can't.)
The challenges Sunni Islam faces are different from those faced by the US society. Scientology's violation of child labor laws has been tested in the courts and was validated.
I believe that at least part of the problem is a little scar the US culture bears called: "what happened to the Branch Davidians?"
You're actually interested in this?
You've phrased that in an odd way. What does it mean in practice to be religiously locked into a certain perspective? Lot had sex with his daughters. Moses ordered rape. What does that lock the Christian into? I'm no fan of Islam and Saudi Arabia is a hellhole as far as I'm concerned, but you'll have to make the distinction clearer as I don't think you would suggest that a Sunni Muslim must be in favour of child rape, right?
Quoting Thorongil
You have a tendency to take things personally and respond on that basis. Our arguments here are really not important enough to merit that. But, yes, everyone's a hypocrite to some degree. And the more you call me unfunny, the more you convince me I must be some kind of comic genius.
My arguments, if deemed "partisan" or "political" by you, are called out and castigated as such. If someone on your side instigates them or does the same thing, not so much. There are some things one can become less hypocritical about, and this is one of them.
Yes, but probably being incapacitated is expected prior to being raped. The most important thing is to avoid such situations in the first place - that's how you protect yourself. Even though I know how to fight I won't get myself into trouble on purpose, and I'll avoid troublesome areas of the city if I can. Remember what Sun Tzu said - the best win without a fight.
I don't have a daughter at the moment, but if I did, I wouldn't teach her she's helpless, but neither would I tell her "Yeah, no worries, you can easily beat the hell out of a 200 pound rapist". That would give her a false sense of security. Fear has its role in protecting us too, so it's important to know when you should fear and when you shouldn't.
If I thought I was an expert, I wouldn't have asked you the questions I did, would I? I am actually interested if you'd care to answer.
I called you out for being hypocritical, which you were, and for turning this into an explicit left vs right issue, which you did. Un wasn't and didn't. But in general, I do have more sympathy with un's worldview so it's likely that I would call him out less than you. You criticizing me for that tendency is another instance of hypocrisy on your part. But again, it's not all that serious.
Right, time to ban unenlightened for sliding the conversation down the wrong road with his underhanded attack on discrimination against Muslims.
Quoting Mongrel
I was just coming out of my mother's vazhin actually...
Quoting Thorongil
Yes, but are you a moderator?!
Baden seems to like attempting to bully the right with underhanded tactics, and then state that it's not his fault. The same tactic he used against Emptyheady.
Looks like somebody forgot to watch the "How not to be a whiny little bitch" video. ;) Seriously though, you do cheer me up with these constant references to Emptyheady. (Y)
Not to mention comments like these:
Quoting Agustino
!
Yes I did watch it, was that your girlfriend in the video?
:-x
It's actually @Michael's woman. Don't tell him I told you though.
Lol
I really do find it bizarre that anyone here should be at all surprised when the right-leaning theists, agnostics, ignostics, or soft-atheists take offense to this sort of crap.
Oh I agree, and there is plenty to criticise going down here in the UK too.
Quoting Baden
But sexual politics is a left-right thing and always has been.
Quoting Thorongil
I was thinking of posts like this:
Quoting tom
Even George W. Bush knows this:
Complete and utter nonsense. Go read his post again.
Quoting Baden
Sure, keep peddling this tu quoque. You say I'm hypocritical because you think I was intentionally trying to be partisan in response to his partisan bait, but you have not established this in the slightest. But do notice that, even if true, you admit that he presented a partisan bait, which you didn't reprimand him for. Hence, you are the hypocrite.
Moreover, I don't know why you keep responding in light of my "not being worth responding to." I'm not sure one could be more hypocritical than you are right now.
Quoting Baden
The absolute cheek of this statement! I'll grant you this: you are sometimes unintentionally comic.
:-d
I'm surprised and deeply honoured that the former president knows anything at all about me.
No, he just knows that you can only fool people once. And so do we. That's why your tactics ain't gonna work anymore.
Precisely!
Here we see, @Mongrel, yet another treasured leftist principle at work, namely, the idol of equality. All religions must be equally bad, and if they're not, we'll just have to make them be!
Unen's comment about Muslims was in reply to the entire article, which contains the Florida example he later quoted but is about a much broader issue in the US. In several states women (and even young girls) campaigned against the possibility of child marriage under US law and were summarily dismissed by politicians. The only thing Unen highlighted was the hypocrisy where we can be pretty certain that if it was a story about Muslims it would be quickly condemned but now that it was the US, all of a sudden child marriage is acceptable to a majority of legislators.
Some stuff from the article:
[quote=David Bates]“We’re asking the Legislature to repeal a law that’s been on the books for over a century, that’s been working without difficulty, on the basis of a request from a minor doing a Girl Scout project,”[/quote]
Working without difficulty, meaning 13 year old girls can be married off. Seems off putting to me.
New Jersey was set to raise it to 18 years but this was blocked by Chris Christie because it would violate the religious traditions of certain communities, requesting exemptions. So yeah, religious freedom trumps physical integrity if you're a girl.
Then I really can't help you. I've been as clear as I can about what I object to in his comment.
Even if she is a whiny little bitch, that's by-the-by.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. There's a normative approach at work: the rule is that all peoples have to be exactly the same and therefore I can understand Muslims by looking in the mirror.
I'll admit to being fearful of intolerance as if it's a slope we're all about to slip down. Maybe because I'm 25% German and therefore 25% antisemitic. I'm confident that 25% of the world's Jews are total assholes. My experience backs that up.
My point was that you're not interpreting what he said correctly. Read the article and read his comment again. Charitably this time.
Or be angry and disagreeable.
In any case, from where I'm standing all religion is equally bad because they're all false. Excuses to acquire divine dispensation for atrocities big and small. Whether it is filling the heads of children with the same lies, perpetuating it ad infinitum, crusades, child marriage, destroying art, rape and war, it's all ugly and regressive.
Quite frankly, it's an affront to philosophy that there's still a philosophy of religion.
Watch out Mongrel... Someone in the not too distant past got banned for comments which were even less potentially offending than this.
How do you know this?
Quoting Benkei
That smells of intolerance to me. Why are you so certain that religion is all false?
Well, as a matter of fact, you're wrong. He admitted he had in mind posts by @tom, not necessarily the article you linked. So how about you go and read his comment again, dearest Dutchman.
Quoting Benkei
...
Quoting Benkei
Yeah, screw philosophy of religion! Who would want to do that? Oh, that's right, you would:
Quoting Benkei
Yeah, it makes no difference whether one lives among Quakers in the American Northeast or among Muslims in Taliban controlled parts of Afghanistan. Tomato, tomahto. They're all the same.
I know this because it's my value judgment.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I'm intolerant to religious bullshit.
I know it because no argument for the existence of God holds water. I know it because no religious system is logically consistent. I know it because no religious system propagates just outcomes. And yes, I'm the final arbiter on what is just, not God (or unicorns for that matter).
What's your point? Because Muslims are worse (in your view) the rest isn't wrong? You know that's a fallacy right?
So all your value judgements are knowledge?
Quoting Benkei
So then why are you surprised when people are intolerant of your Godless bullshit?
Quoting Benkei
In your opinion, and according to your judgement this may be true. But there are many intelligent people who would disagree with you. This alone should
Quoting Benkei
How come some of the brightest minds, including Isaac Newton, St. Thomas Aquinas, Blaise Pascal, etc. disagreed with you on this point?
Quoting Benkei
As defined by you, but as I say below, I'm also the final arbiter, so they certainly propagate just outcomes according to me.
Quoting Benkei
Okay, then I'm the final arbiter too. Let's see where that is going to get us.
Oh. The Prophet is viewed as a model of proper behavior by Sunnis, so there's a problem with condemning intercourse with a nine year old girl. A law against statutory rape, to the extent that it's a law against the very thing the Prophet did (according to sources considered highly reliable), can't be viewed as necessarily outlawing something that's immoral.
Suppose a bunch of assholes move to make it legal to molest children. The vast majority of Christian clergy-people would have no problem speaking out against this. This is significant because this is what clergy people are supposed to do. They're supposed to reach out and jerk a knot in the population when it starts to screw up.
A Sunni clergyman couldn't join them unconditionally. It's not like they don't know that this is a problem. They do. They just have bigger problems to deal with right now. The reason they don't have flexibility to condemn the Prophet's behavior is because Islam didn't have anybody like Augustine to inject the notion of taking scripture symbolically. Islam grew and evolved with some freedom until about the 10th Century when it sort of froze over. The idea was that to allow further flexibility would be to deny that Islam was complete as it was.
That not all religions engage, if at all, in "crusades, child marriage, destroying art, rape, and war" to the same degree. You can think they're all equally false, in that their main tenets are false, but that doesn't mean they're all equally "bad" in the ways just listed. That is to equivocate with the term "bad."
What was my original statement? Try again.Quoting Agustino
Obviously not intelligent enough. And that's not just my opinion that's the conclusion of too many centuries of philosophy of religion.
Quoting Agustino
I'm glad you take responsibility for your own opinions as you should. You also realise this isn't possible when you're religious right? You'll end up doing things religion proscribes not because you think you ought to do it but because you think you ought to do it because it is demanded. And there enters the worst aspect of every religion, in that it absolves its practitioners from moral responsibility as long as there's some religious rule they can hide behind.
Quoting Agustino
How come some of the brightest minds disagreed with them? For someone who constantly reiterates how important it is to think for yourself, it strikes me as odd to introduce this cherry-picked appeal to authority. Suffice is to say there's development in thought and reasoning as well that doesn't allow today's thinkers the same ignorance of people living in the 16th century (or before).
I am horrified by the fact that child marriage is legal and happens in the US. I didn't know that until Benkei put up his link. I confess to being more horrified by it happening in my country's special best ally than in places that are clearly poorly governed in all sorts of ways. I probably shouldn't be, but things closer to me hit harder.
So my response was more emotional than closely argued - as suits the shout box. Now can you explain why these facts about the US and my rather loose comments have provoked such a defensive and overtly political reaction on your part. Are you not horrified too, by child marriage to cover up rape, or are you too busy being horrified by my loose talk?
I never said that; I said it is all equally bad because they're all false. Period. Then I listed a series of things various practioners of different religions at some point in time or currently are guilty of.
That's very debatable. The Sufis had such an approach, but they gradually lost influence, so it would be more correct to say that Islam's Augustines were snuffed out than that they didn't exist at all.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Benkei
But that's false. I've arrived at my morality independent of religion. In fact, one of the reasons I came back to religion was precisely because what I discovered to be true morality coincided perfectly with that of religion.
Quoting Benkei
The point I was trying to make isn't that you're wrong. It's merely that you can't assert the certainty that you wish to assert, because clearly the matters aren't as settled as you'd like them to be.
Yes you did. Stop being a bonehead. You said they were bad because they're false and then listed bad things religious people have done purportedly in the name of their religion. I then said: "not all religions engage, if at all, in 'crusades, child marriage, destroying art, rape, and war' to the same degree." Do you agree or disagree?
Nope, if I spent every single day being horrified about all the shit and evil going on in the world I'd be a depressed and hopeless man. Enough of this crap "ohhh I'm so horrified!!" bla bla. Quit this virtue signalling and bullshit. Yes it's a terrible thing, but no, I'm absolutely not horrified by it. Shit happens in the world. What's the point of being horrified about something I can't do anything about? I expect bad things to happen in this world, so I don't go around being horrified by it. I see if I can do my little something to improve things, and that's it.
No I didn't. You can read can't you? And thanks for the ad hom. Really mature.
I suspected you interpreted it incorrectly, which is why I followed up with a question to clarify your meaning (it's called active listening, you should try it). I then established you did interpret it incorrectly and then you persist in attributing a meaning I'm completely clear about I didn't want to convey. What's that? A straw man? Ah yes...
Clearly.
Quoting unenlightened
And right on cue, we have the uncharitable insinuation that I somehow believe that child marriage among Christians is less morally wrong than child marriage among Muslims. Why ask me such a ridiculous question unless you suspect I will answer in the negative (or affirmative in my wording)? You might as well have asked me whether I am horrified by murder, torture, or any other evil deed. That you feel compelled to ask such a question proves your own extreme prejudice.
Well. Considering your excitingly inconsistent views in some areas and total lack of being horrified about child marriages covering up rape in the US it can't be a Christian religion, unless of course you're a literalist in which case to be consistent you should argue for a legal age of marriage of three years and one day, except that doesn't square with you classifying it as "shit and evil".
I'm not in a position to debate that, but I don't think Sufis were ever really comparable to Augustine.
There was no ad hom. You are, in fact, a thick-skulled individual incapable of understanding even your own posts.
Quoting Benkei
So you admit that not all religious people behave in the same way?
So what if you're horrified? Children stop getting raped because you're horrified, or what's the deal? :s Being horrified is useless. Doing something about it - that certainly is a lot more useful.
Stop feigning morality.
Now that is a neat move, considering my own objection to Tiff's question. But your fulminating is what makes it a serious question. And of course I did also answer Tiff's question with a quote from the article. Whereas it appears to be beneath your dignity to put my paranoid suspicions to rest. But you can reconfirm your horror at what I say, and that rather supports my paranoid speculations as to your attitudes to these issues. I am rather uncharitable, I suspect your motives.
http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage/the-netherlands/
In fact, I'd expect wherever there are poor, uneducated people, you're going to find all sorts of abuses, not the least of which are child brides. The Roma get married very very young as do the Irish Travelers. Sometimes poor and uneducated people have primitive religious beliefs, irrational superstitions, and all sorts of backwards customs.
Does this mean we're all the same, yet we hypocritically condemn others who do just as we do. No, not at all. In the US and in the Netherlands child marriage is a condemned aberration, which is not the case everywhere.
Resist.
And realise the tactic. Being horrified changes nothing. The only thing it does is make you weak, and unable to do anything. Wonder why some desire to do that to you.
I don't think Un was trying to discredit Christianity. He was trying to propel a snot ball at the United States. His take is that all Americans are exactly the same and they're all involved in decisions about the use of the military. Unanimously, they agree that Islam should be punished for some immoral action or other and therefore do odd things like drone strikes and what not.
He was trying to draw attention to the fact that Florida should be drone struck.
BTW.. upon reflection, I think Florida's law was probably meant to protect pregnant young women from the stigma of being unwed mothers. Back in the day, that status could be devastating because the the assumption would be: whore.
Is that a Christianity thing? Somewhat, yes.
My conspiracy theory is that they want me to go to war and reduce the population, so hey want me to be horrified about 'them'. And all this horror on my part is a resistance to that. It is a redirection of horror away from the 'other' and towards a more reflective horror at what 'we' do. I am weak, and that is your horror - but weakness will triumph in the end.
Why would they want to reduce the population? More people = greater revenue potential + cheaper workers.
Quoting unenlightened
Why would you think that?
I don't think the falsehood of a certain claim corresponds with its moral worth. For example, it's untrue that today is December 15th, 1746, but is this claim in itself "equally bad" as someone who claims it's December 16th, 1747? I think the moral lack rests in the individual making the claim, not the claim in itself.
To put this another way, and in the context of the last handful of posts, I'd say that one must first establish a proper template from which we can judge the falsity of each particular religion, based upon its doctrines and collection of claims. Only then can we go about figuring out whether or not every religion is equally false. Even so, how does it follow that idea X in religion Y is equally immoral as idea Y in religion X? The falsity of a religion's claims are either believed or not believed. Only the actions therefrom can be judged as being moral or immoral, as I see it.
I mean, if I'm just being totally frank here, it strikes me as being absolutely mental for someone to suggest, first, that Aztec Animism, for example, is as false as Western Christianity in its teaching, and second, that Aztec Animism is as equally immoral, somehow, as Western Christianity is based solely upon the supposed fact that each religion is equally false. I don't see how you've woven falsehood with morality, so perhaps you could enlighten me.
Quoting Mongrel
Quoting Mongrel
Perhaps. Or to keep women from having abortions. I guess it was more prudent to set up a marriage between the rapist and her victim over letting the victim have an abortion?
I'm not criticizing your religious beliefs, but it is a rather striking coincidence that even among those who insist they independently arrived at their religious beliefs, they hold to the same beliefs as their parents. In fact, there's no better way to predict someone's beliefs than to simply ask what beliefs their family held.
Just accept the fact that your faith was chosen more to conform to your familial norms than anything else. Why lie to yourself?
Yeah, but 16 is fine. 11 ain't.
Except it isn't. It's state sanctioned in about half of US states, it's illegal in the Netherlands. There's a significant difference there.
Awww. I got under your skin. Cute.
Yes. Plus infant mortality was pretty high. The baby wouldn't have to go straight to hell upon birth (failed birth, that is) if the parents were married.
Religion is awesome.
Nope. My parents are like you pretty much, especially with regards to, for example, sexual morality. My father is an atheist who likes to dabble in things like New Age (Osho, etc.). My mother is a Christian, but not very devout. The rest of my family - uncles, cousins, etc. are irreligious atheists for the most part.
So I'm definitely not like my family. I simply couldn't have been, because the things they've been advising me to do as a kid simply weren't the things I uphold now. So I really haven't arrived at this morality because of my family or what I've been taught. Quite the contrary.
What I've been taught at home is like this:
• Evil people always get ahead.
• Men are supposed to chase after girls - the more girls a man gets, the better he is
• Priests (and the Church) are corrupt and not to be trusted
etc.
Right, so why would you believe what I said, hmm?
Yes, child marriage is immoral no matter who's perpetrating it. There could not have been any other answer based on my comments, but as you say, you're an uncharitable paranoid.
If you ascribe to a utilitarian type of ethics the above makes some sense.
But let's say we have a mathematical problem and 20 students give 20 different solutions but they're all false then what point to say one of them was closer than they other? Hence, they're all equally bad.
Now, I can agree that some people are worse than others based on a particular reference frame but history teaches us that's all rather temporal. From where I'm standing issues like Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo and torture are quite equivalent to Islamic terrorism. Not Christian you say? US torture was forwarded under a president who considered he was called by God to do His bidding on earth. And of course the same argument will be forwarded by adherents of any religion; it's not really Jewish to discriminate and marginalise non-Jewish Israelis, terrorism isn't really Islamic, etc.
The problem with any set of rules that alleviates the burden of personal moral responsibility sets up a system inviting abuse by offering (divine) dispensation. Patriotism and nationalism, for instance, suffer from the same problem. The extent of such abuse (or absence thereof) is driven by historic and social context.
In that sense I'm baffled that St Augustine's work is then forwarded as something Islam needs by Mongrel. That's the same person who changed a peaceful religion into one of violence, by allowing kings and emperors to give dispensation for the prohibition on violence - even if such a person's reasons to go to war are unjust. Great improvement!
How very convenient too that there's always someone doing the deciding but someone else is doing the dying.
Ah. You just hit puberty. Explains a lot. :P
That was long ago. When I hit puberty that's when I actually conformed to the beliefs of my parents ;)
>:O
You're doing everything backward man, you need to get with the program!
I was raised a Catholic by the way.
There's actually a fun read of Genesis as a simile for the development of kids into adulthood. How they are first innocent and then grow up, ashamed of their bodies and down the slippery slope they go. How's that for an Augustinian symbolic interpretation?
That snake from genesis was obviously phallic and represented male sexual desires. You'll be happy to know God cursed it in keeping with your sexual mores.
Well I'm totally not ashamed of my body (if that's what you're suggesting), but I've just seen the harm immorality causes and want none of it.
Quoting Benkei
I was too cowardly back then to rebel.
Quoting Benkei
Goodnight! >:O
Quoting Benkei
That may explain your current repulsiveness towards it :P .
In my schooling I would often get half credit on math questions that I'd answer almost correctly, getting more right than other kids. So, no, my answer isn't equally as wrong as the other kid who just wrote a penis on his paper or something. Both wrong, but not both equally wrong.
Quoting Benkei
You're condemning people here, not the religion. Murder is murder is murder, same with rape, arson, what have you. If I label myself a Satanist and go out and chuck buckets of goat feces on people's heads out in the town square, does that mean my Satanism is somehow false and morally reprehensible merely because I am a professed Satanist, or is my action to blame? Again, the wedge I'm driving is between a person's actions and the religion they separately "follow." The child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church shouldn't be used as an indictment on the religion's theology, but rather on the people who did and do these things, and on the institutional failings within the church hierarchy.
Quoting Benkei
What does this have to do with anything??
Quoting Benkei
uh...
Quoting Benkei
>:O >:O >:O
Nope, I wasn't insinuating anything. I honestly suggest reading it like that once and if the guy writing it intended it that way, I can only say he was pretty insightful.
Quoting Agustino
I consider myself an equal opportunity disliker of religion.
My personal reading is more cosmic than merely human. "The fall" characterises the whole world, starting from the very basics - the second law of thermodynamics, which pretty much guarantees that everything will decay.
The other element is indeed that humans lose that child-like innocence of living absorbed in the present moment, and instead start living in their heads instead of in the world. That innocence is lost when you start listening to the serpent (society) as opposed to your own conscience.
I was not. I rather like Christianity in the sense of loving your neighbour and the like, in a noncommittal sort of way.
Quoting Mongrel
Well, not quite. I suspect there are almost as many decent Americans as there are decent Brits and that's right up in the hundreds. My snot balls are directed at the self righteous of any faith or none. *Ducks to avoid own snot ball*.
But since my position on all things are of so much interest to so many, I will declare that I am against all organised religion on the grounds that it is like dried water, it does not quench one's thirst. But I am not an atheist either, or even a practicing agnostic. I am probably left wing by the standards of most Americans and have pacifist and anarchist leanings. Basically, I think we live in an anarchy, and this means there is nothing to prevent folks from forming governments. Some governments are worse than others. I put up with this, but reserve the right to complain, whenever I'm not too intimidated. However I am not a member of any political party, or of any religion.
One must not cry "Nigger!" and then be drop jawed that somebody was offended. Obviously...
[quote="unenlightened] I'm sorry Tiff, but I find that question offensive. It comes across as a rhetorical denial that it ever happens. but it has happened and it does happen.[/quote]
Please, unenlightened, never feel sorry for finding something I say offensive and I am glad you said something.
I was not intending to come across as though it never happens but I was looking at the situation as an adult and a Mother. When you combine those two qualities, I become very, very protective Momma Bear. So I would pity the man that raped my child, not just because of the ramifications of the law but because of how I would react. To entertain the idea that I would consent to my child marrying an adult is to just light a fire under my most fierce reaction.
That might not be everyone else's approach, it might not even be the "right" approach but for me? I hope I never encounter such an adult because I am not sure I could bite my tongue or control myself.
But I don't disagree that many people develop all sorts of neuroses with regards to sexuality. Largely out of trying to conform to society and its standards. It seems that some people accept pain and suffering as normality - part of life - and then go forth living with it, instead of always battling it. I've seen people having sex just because they feel something is wrong with them if they don't - that's clearly a message that they've received from society.
But take me as an example. My childhood was very open with regards to sexuality. I mean at 8 or 9 when I was still living at the countryside, us guys would show our genitals to each other, play with each other etc. Then we started to do it with the girls too. And so forth. There were very few inhibitions. Of course we hid from our parents because they would have been outraged from us doing stuff like that at that young age.
It was only as I advanced in age that I started to perceive the dangers of sexual immorality. First I noticed how much time some guys spend chasing women - time that they could spend much better, since most of that time, they were actually failing. Then I noticed how much some guys lose their dignity for a woman. Then when I had my first girlfriend, I started to notice how easily sexuality can hurt the other, and how significant it can be in a relationship. And so forth. I learned as I aged. A few years ago I would have said sex with someone you intend to marry is perfectly alright (despite the Church disagreeing with me). Now I think that's not right - I think it's actually a sign of independence from sex, and the relationship not depending on it at all to work. If that can happen, problems in marriage are less likely. And so forth - but I grew to this position, that day by day is closer to official Christian morality, rather slowly. Mind you, it's still not identical because I still claim sex for intimacy with your wife is moral, even in the absence of procreation.
#KrishnamurtiReloaded
You still haven't answered my questions.
Very cool passage Cavacava
Here is the freaky part: after they removed the crown/tooth they hand filed the bone and then placed Cadaver bone in the hole which is now being held into my mouth by a stitched in membrane that holds the Cadaver bones in place.
Have I mentioned that it is Cadaver bones that are freaking me out a little. I mean who did it come from? Was it a male or a female? What nationality? What religious affiliation?
Does it really matter? I am wondering as I try to get the Cadaver bones to bond with my remaining bone to repair damage done to my jaw. I really want this to work and for the first time I have a bit of hope that I can get my smile back as I have missed it greatly.
That sounds painful, Tiff. I wish you a speedy recovery. Just out of curiosity, why are you not taking any pain relievers?
The use of cadaver bones is pretty standard in, for instance, spinal fusion procedures to augment the patient's own bone and to facilitate the healing process. I assume that they are similarly routinely used in maxillofacial applications like that described in your post. (Indeed, it would be pretty difficult to obtain significant quantities of human bone from anywhere other than a cadaver!)
Arkady, thank you for your wishes, they mean a lot right now. I cannot take any Opiates as a result of my being addicted to OxyContin for 2.5 yrs after I broke my back horseback riding, and another 2.5 yrs to get off the Opiates with an Addiction/Pain specialist overseeing my care. At the end of that 5 yrs, I was functioning at 10% for the next 45 days and it was almost 60 days before I got my first Dopamine dump.
So I have made the decision to not ever use Opiates again. To the point that I list it as my being marked Allergic to Opiates and I have told my Pharmacy to call any Doctor who prescribes me any Opiate or any cousin, synthetic sisters of Opiates, as I have no desire to slay that Dragon again. The over the counter pain meds make my ulcers bleed so they are not an option either.
Do you think that the person that donated their cadaver for my tooth liked the blues?
Why do you think your personal experience is relevant to the point I was trying to make with my analogy? You argue against something intended as an image and missed my question and therefore my point.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
What part is unclear? I identify what I consider the core problem; I can kill because the pope tells me to or because the president ordered it and I'm absolved from sin in the case of catholicism. Every religion (and some other social constructs) doles out such dispensation; the what, the how and against whom varies from time to time and location.
"Samenleving" is the Dutch word for society but it's literal translation would be "together living". So in a literal sense it say "Living together (society). It only works if you take it literally."
That awkward moment when you give too much information... :-O
Wanna know more? >:) >:O
No.
What these ones?
Quoting Agustino
1. Very briefly. The formula of mass production and mass consumption as the best source of profit is ending with the development of bespoke 3D printing and intelligent robotics. The masses used to be needed to produce, but that is ending, and everyone is now in the service industries, serving each other. In profit terms, this is pure waste; better to eliminate them altogether.
2. I'm not going trawling for quotes, but it is what you say, and how you respond to what others say - what else could it be? Oh on second thoughts, here's one example:
I am too, but I want to escape this service industry.
Quoting unenlightened
Okay, yes, I despise weakness of character, not weakness of any sort. If someone is overcome by external forces, that is weakness too, but yet I don't despise that if his spirit remains strong.
>:O >:O >:O Common, kids at that age are just learning. Not that that makes it any less worse though :P
What do you do with this emotion?
I use it to strengthen my own character, watch my own weaknesses, and seek to fortify myself, obviously.
I agree with Augustine that we are born with an evil tendency, and we only overcome it by effort.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't feel guilty for things I've done long ago, because that's pointless, I can't undo them. Chastity is not a punishment but a good thing.
So that improves you. How does that make the world a better place?
Well, first of all, a better me = a better world. If you better yourself, the whole world becomes better. In addition, my character can inspire other people.
It strikes me as rather unchristian. God humbled himself becoming human and engaged us despite all our horrible savagery.
It also doesn't quite make sense why you wouldn't want to engage the other person and discuss their behaviour. Ignoring it, is as good as condoning it (assuming it is such immoral behaviour that it's worth despising). You said your parents taught you that "evil people get ahead", or something similar and that you totally disagree with it. For evil people to get ahead it is sufficient that good people do nothing.
So your decision not to engage and to be pre-occupied with yourself, as almost everybody does in this cultural bubble of individualism, is precisely why in practise your parents are pretty close to the mark. It's not evil people who get ahead, it's people who act without concern for the consequences to others and when those others let them. I'd suggest you speak up and help those you consider weak and lift them up if you can. There's not much inspirational about someone who only acknowledges others because those others managed to cross some arbitrary threshold you personally set for them.
Well I do want to engage the other person but at the same time I know that it's not in my power to change them. It ultimately depends on them.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, I agree. The other part of it is that all too often goodness is associated with passivity and weakness - we view goodness only as turning the other cheek, not also as chasing the money-lenders out of the temple with the whip. I think this false association between weakness and goodness does much harm, which is why I'm opposed to what I see as weakness of character, which permits evil to flourish.
Quoting Benkei
I'm not sure. You may be right, but I'm the only one who is fully within my control. I can't guarantee others will change, or that others will be good people, etc. Each man or woman can only play their part. And they should at least play that one well.
Glad to hear it, your first reaction made you look cold and disdainful. I can appreciate this.
Quoting Agustino
Some suggestions on that earlier text. ;)
It's very easy not to give up on yourself unless you have a clinical depression. I agree you cannot guarantee others will change but you can change tactics and try again. Your strength in arguing your points vehemently is also your weakness; not everybody is sensitive to rational argument to begin with. So even if they're good points, you will often not reach others.
I'm 39 and I'm still learning to listen as I've only managed with you in the past two days (I'm the argumentative type too). I can appreciate your comments more even if I disagree on many things.
The only effort you would need to maintain is a dedication to knowing your subjective and the external world so that you can strengthen the cognition that would differentiate your mechanical, instinctual drives that propel us to behave without reason; when one is incapable of moral reasoning, they have no conscience and that is what evil tendency is. It is not a demon, not an implanted darkness that we need to escape or remove, but quite simply a state of mind. Just like how our minds can process an anxious experience and automatically repress or avoid it and thus the experience does not translate into past-tense and you end up stuck with unknown sensations of anxiety, by avoiding rather than accepting the nature of our existence is a type of self-deception that inevitably leads us to commit the very evil that we seek to avoid. Wisdom is an authenticity of this awareness.
Once, my chastity was based on my fear of men because my upbringing wasn't that great, but it was based on a repressed anxiety and I felt safe when I was alone as I did when I was a child; as an adult, this was self-deceptive and why it was like a punishment and why I had no subjective peace. I am peace now because I became honest with myself. Now, I am level-headed to comfortably reason that it is impossible for me to submit to a relationship without authenticity; it has nothing to do with marriage or sex, just genuine reason alone where I cannot be with someone who does not have the wisdom to understand, protect and love me as much as I would on my own. Otherwise, what is the point?
If I were as wealthy as Osteen, I would probably be brimming with unrestrained optimism, too.
You are right.
Quoting Benkei
Agreed. The other issue is that reason isn't like the emotions - it doesn't instantly move people. It often takes a lot of time for reason to become effective. And this is especially true if the points are contrary to what people already hold as true. But you are right, I can alienate people because of my vehemence, and I often do. More strangely though, some of those I alienate at first, end up appreciating me later on. My policy is that it's better to be honest and abandoned than dishonest and admired.
Quoting Benkei
That is good you are striving to do that, it's admirable!
There's a thread in this if I could find the right angle; we are not that far apart, I suspect. But on weakness and dependency, the predator, prey relationship is instructive. The predator is stronger, by definition, but is also the more dependent in the relationship. The fox needs the rabbit more than the rabbit needs the fox.
Now I'm a fan of independence; I like to do my own plumbing, grow my own food, educate myself independently, and so on. It gives me a certain resilience and adaptability in changing circumstances, but it keeps me firmly at the bottom of the economy. We peasants are fairly independent, whereas leaders need followers, and servants to do all the things they are too important to do, like the washing.
There's nothing profound or enlightened about knee jerk cynicism, which was sort of my point in referring to the positive impact of an optimistic message, even when it arises in an ideological context (fundamentalist Christian) very foreign to my own. That is to say, you just pulled out the same old tired response that all is underhanded, dishonest, and untrustworthy, despite having no earthly idea what the good Mr. Osteen has ever said. None of this is to say that I care if you agree with anything he says, but it's only to remark that there's nothing that ought to bind intellectualism to negativity, although there seems to be a strong current of that line of thinking generally.
Get a room guys.
Yeah right, as if wealth alone could change your inner state. Wealth is valuable - it can help you do a lot of things in the world for others - but it's not going to decide your inner state.
Agustino is just a kid. It's definitely time for him to be strong.
I can sort of see that, but why would you say the fox needs the rabbit more than the other way around? Just because it requires the rabbit for survival, while the rabbit doesn't require the fox?
Quoting unenlightened
Me too.
Quoting unenlightened
I don't follow this. Why are you on the bottom of the economy if you're individually capable to do so many things? If you grow your own food, why don't you sell some of it? If you do your own plumbing, why don't you do it for other people too? etc.
Right, you're doing what I've done some years ago in understanding that there's a price to be paid for everything, and realising when you're getting a bad deal - when the price isn't worth paying. There's no point in wasting time with the wrong person just to "be with someone".
On the one hand, I'm too busy making shift for myself, and on the other, to work for another is to be dependent on them - hence the term 'wage slave'. I sometimes do stuff for nothing, but people don't like it much - they find it demeaning. Money is the measure of dependency; whenever I buy goods or services, I enter a web of dependency, on the one side on the provider of goods or services, and on the other side on whoever is the source of my money, given that one of the things I don't do is print my own money.
There's an efficiency factor too. Mass production is far more efficient, but one depends on the mass to do it.
Who said you have to work for another as a wage slave? That's not what I've been implying. I hate that kind of work, and yes, you're never going to make money out of stuff like that, just burn yourself out.
Why is it bad to be a wage slave? Because your employer controls your TIME! He controls when you get up, what you do during the day, where you eat, who you speak to, etc. He also controls how you come dressed to work, what rules you have to obey, and all sorts of other bullshit. If you're a wage slave you can't pop on TPF in the middle of the day and write a 1500 word post. That may be fine for people who are willing to make themselves slaves for the security of consistent payment, but not for someone who (1) has the skills to be self-reliant, (2) has the skills necessary to helps others, (3) wants to do something in the world.
But that's not your only choice. It took me about a year to realise that. You can work as self-employed, or start a business with your own values - based on useful work you can do for others. I'm self-employed at the moment, and for example past week I've been making close to $100/day average, all payments for projects I've finished awhile ago. I can pop in the middle of the day like now and write a long post here - because my time isn't controlled by an employer. If there's people I don't like, I just don't work with them. Nobody tells me how to dress, what time to wake up, etc. I can work at 0:00 in the night if I feel like it or the regular 6:00-12:00 + slower work after. That sounds like independence to me.
And I'm in a place where costs of living are very low. People live with $500/month here - $1000 gets you very comfortable. But why waste that money, when you can save it, and use them to grow your reach? The more money you make (& save) the more you can influence society and ultimately make the world a better place. Anything of value requires money to sustain itself, even Krishnamurti needed money to fly around the world and spread his teachings (despite claiming he needs none of it). And that's not bad - money is just a means.
Quoting unenlightened
Not really, money is just a way to get things done in the world. Do you want to help other people? Then you need money. Whether it's your own, or others' money. And guess what, your own is always better. If you rely on money from others, they will dictate what you do with it, and then you'll really be dependent on them. That's why relying for funding on X Y Z for your NGO to help children in Africa is suicide - X Y Z will dictate what you do, since you depend on them to get the money you need to put in place better irrigation systems, etc.
Depends. Mass production may be more efficient at producing a LOT of X. But maybe I don't want a lot of X of poor quality. Maybe I want a few X of high quality with amazing service. The market doesn't want just vegetables. It also wants naturally grown, no GMCs, fresh vegetables.
If you can control the education - through for example marketing - and the distribution - then you can help steer the world in a better direction than merely produce as much as possible and consume as much as possible (which currently is the general trend).
Yes, I've done that too, as a landscape gardener, and as a vegetarian grocer. I've also worked without pay for an education charity, and as a community baker. Because independence is pretty much impossible - no one wants to be their own dentist. But self-employment does not make one independent of others , thought it gives you some freedoms if the circumstances are right. But if the circumstances are wrong, it can mean that one loses all employment protection including a minimum wage, for the dubious benefit of the freedom to starve. One is dependent again, on others keeping the marketplace some kind of level playing field, and on clients playing fair, or courts to make em.
People think that wealth makes them independent, but it is not so, because wealth is a social construct.
As it happens, I own the whole world, but unfortunately society has yet to recognise this. :D
You've grown up. Now you're comparing your dick with others on an internet forum.
Quoting Benkei
And I still fail to see what your "point" is, apart from what I've quoted and already addressed. Telling me that I've missed this "point" isn't going to be an amenable cop-out with me.
Quoting Benkei
A. You can't kill merely because the Pope tells you to, and B. soldiers kill in the name of country, and all that is associated with it, the office of the President being one.
Also, I like how you didn't even reply to your hypocrisy about justice. Again, just as you've done again, you hate it when it appears as though people act in the name of Pope so and so, or religion xyz, but you give yourself a pass because moral judgement begins and ends with you. Absolutely lunacy.
It would be the other way around, at least in the earliest Fertile Crescent communities.
I'm mainly rejecting the notion that there was something we would recognize as society prior to the existence of wealth.
What do you mean by wealth? Coinage? Or is it enough to own some goats?
Quoting Mongrel
Money -> something to exchange valuable goods with is different than wealth. Un was talking about wealth being a social construct, not money. Probably people first organised themselves in societies by exchanging goods directly - you give me your apples, I give you my oranges - without the use of money. As things became more diversified, money became a necessary invention to simplify the process.
Quoting unenlightened
Is it entirely about the circumstances though? Maybe I was just lucky, but it seems to me that it's a lot about finding work for yourself. I mean it feels like you must be doing something wrong to fail. Not making enough calls, not leveraging people/companies you've already worked with, not providing something valuable enough etc.
Quoting unenlightened
That depends on how you structure things for yourself. I admit that there are some industries (construction for example) where procedures are quite standard. But not all industries are like that. For example I don't really care if clients don't play fair, because they still pay me 50% upfront + they don't actually receive login details until I get another 25% or 50% (depending on project). Even if things were unfair, I don't expect the courts to be of much use. Courts are only useful if you have the financial resources to ensure that the law gets enforced. Otherwise, what good will it do? A big company can afford to run me around the courts, but I can't afford to run them.
Why would I answer your question if you don't answer mine? It's quid pro quo buddy.
The rest of your post is just verbal aggressiveness I don't feel any inclination to reply to. Calm down a bit and try it with some respect towards me.
Of course it isn't entirely. But if you are a woman in Syria, you are going to find business rather more difficult than if you are a white male in a wealthy European country. Circumstances are important. To take it to a cliched extreme, if you were a successful Jew in Nazi Germany, you'd likely be in more of a target than if you were a failure. If your property rights are not respected by society, as I joked before, you have no wealth regardless of your business acumen. Like the rest of the world, you have completely ignored my ownership of everything. :(
Because you are the one who claimed that religions are...
Quoting Benkei
...to which I contested, pointing out to you that you've conflated the moral status of a religion's truth claims with the moral failings of those people who label themselves as belonging to religion x, y, or z. As I wrote before, the child molesting priests in the Catholic Church is an example of people, Christians in this case, behaving badly, very badly. That there have been, and are, rotten priests, Popes, Buddhist monks, whomever else, does not indict the religion in itself but rather the people who fail to live up to and act in accordance with the ethics taught in religions like Christianity. Again, your claim is that religions are all equally immoral (bad, as you write) because they are all equally false, but instead of comparing religious doctrines, you look at the dirty dozens, as if they somehow reflect the religion's teaching. I mean, does murder require a Pope's supposed sanctioning every single time? Are little children only abused and raped by religious people? Of course not. Say we dig up an instance of sexual abuse from every single workplace environment across the world, from inside the factories to inside school classrooms, is the mere fact that machinists and teachers commit immoral deeds in all these places enough to argue, as you have done with regard to religion, that every working environment is, therefore, false because they're all "bad"? As I've said several times now, this claim of yours simply does not hold. And to be honest, I think you know you fudged your claims up, but you're too proud to admit that you were being silly. So, either you address my own argumentative replies, or you continue to bow out like a derp. The choice is yours, of course, as only you can determine what justice may be applied to the proper ending of this "discussion." ;)
Sedentary as in a landed class? The landed "class" in the earliest Mesopotamian communities had nearly the most power and social leverage because they controlled food distribution. The best farmers of the land made the most food, thus creating dependency between those with land and the expertise to make food, and those who perhaps had less land or no land at all and little to no expertise with regard to farming. After this established relationship is when you get a dedicated labor class, bounty religions, organized militiaries, an additional valuation of labor like money - all this and more created the earliest societies.
Wealth or money? Money would denote coinage, which was the term I thought you were first arguing on. If, instead of money, you'd rather argue that "wealth", however abstract you might define that term, was before proper society, I'd prolly agree.
What are you referring to as the earliest Mesopotamian communities? The Halaf culture? The Ubaid period? When?
I think Bilo would fit in, in that culture :D
Oh well. At least we know that Trump has now a zero chance at reelection.
And we also knew that he had a zero change at election. Knowledge can't be trusted.
True that. I guess time will tell.
Nope, I didn't know that.
Yeah, but you also don't know that the Bible is a load of bollocks.
...
And this was intended to be a humorous slight, but I may have just inadvertently accepted the truth of Christianity. :-O
Wawawiwaaa! Tell us more! :D What brought about this change of heart?
"...the Bible is a load of bollacks."
Your half bushel of rye is in the mail. Use it wisely.
I feel condescension here... :’(
They're all guilty of those things to some extent, including Corbyn, as evidenced in his own interview with Andrew Neil, but he handled it better and things didn't get quite so ridiculous and out-of-hand as they did in the Farron interview.
I got 75% Lib Dem, 25% Green Party.
It's interesting that the national result, based on 82.2k, has:
Labour: 26.6%
Green Party: 22.8%
Liberal Democrat: 20.4%
UKIP: 15.3%
Conservatives: 14.5%
Plaid Cymru: 0.3%
Although I guess this just shows that most Conservative supporters aren't big internet users.
Mary Berry rocks. I auditioned for the Aussie Bake Off, got to third round. My vegetarian shepherds pie was awesome but I wasn't interesting enough to merit television :-x
Quoting Michael
What do they have in them? >:) >:)
Like this?
I told you you're boring, but you didn't believe me :P
Where in my post did I say that "all is underhanded, dishonest, and untrustworthy"? And while I'm not a student of the good Mr. Osteen's work, it is false to say that I have "no earthly idea" what he has ever said (nor did my post convey that implication). In fact, my response to you was a slightly tongue-in-cheek jab at Osteen's so-called prosperity gospel, and his great personal wealth (you know, the way Jesus did it).
In fact, there are at least some good reasons for optimism (I'd recommend checking out Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist for a good read along those lines), and perhaps Osteen gives some good reasons, but really, I see no reason for regarding him as much different as any other shiny-suited blowhard in the vein of Jerry Falwell and company, who have profited mightily off of the superstitious credulity of the American public (though Osteen does seem to soft-peddle at least some of the social issues which so bedeviled the likes of Falwell).
Why are you telling me, I never took drugs, and I don't drink >:O
He actually makes an important point - man is made in the image of God, the angels (and demons) aren't. Man is in this sense the centre of creation. I've come upon this point in my reading of Hermeticism in a book recommended by John, and this guy seems to be putting it in a way that's accessible to the multitudes.
Okay but not everyone is destined to be an independent and free spirit. Some people like the structure that can be provided by, for example, a fixed, secure job, a community telling them what to believe, etc. Not everyone is a leader and a free spirit. But there's nothing wrong with those people, they too deserve respect.
Independence was not a choice for me, I need to work in a fixed, secure job in order to survive and I am scared as hell and have been for a long time. But to be a 'free-spirit' is not a given, but a choice because one requires an independence in their conscious decisions in order for those decisions to be genuine or authentic. Otherwise, anything 'good' is superficial at best, good only in the eyes of a community telling you that it is good; you cannot really love if you follow others.
Yes, but you are capable of educating yourself, studying and learning. Not many people are capable to be so self-motivated. You may be scared, but then think about how scared people who know they can't educate themselves, who don't have any motivation, etc. - think how scared they must be. Somebody who can provide a little hope and education in a language they can understand - like Joel Osteen - greatly helps them.
That's the thing with fear. We generally think only we are afraid. And we overestimate how afraid we are, and underestimate how afraid others are.
Quoting TimeLine
Sure, I agree apart from the last part. Those who follow can love too. They are just followers, not leaders - that doesn't make them less worthy of being human or anything else. We each have different talents and purposes.
What a load of codswallop. People who are afraid to educate themselves are afraid of breaking from the determined simplicity formed as part of their identity during childhood since such an education would enable autonomy; the greatest anxiety that people feel is the reality that they are separate and distinct from others. The responsibility is so overwhelming that they repress it by conforming, reverting back to the safe and comfortable feelings that such mindlessness evokes. They have chosen to submit and the approval by others produces a superficial happiness that is enough to sustain their own self-deceit. An illusion cannot motivate self-education, it is farcical at best.
My fear is the fact that I have absolute freedom; I am not connected to a religion, to a community of people, to a social image, and I don't even have a family. It is scary because I am on my own in the physical world and communities can provide or encourage a sense of both security and belonging. But, it would be a lie for me to submit to a community if they have no mind of their own, no authenticity in their understanding.
The only thing I can do is make friends that I am confident has the autonomy and moral worthiness and call them a part of my 'community' as a group of independent thinkers.
Why do you reckon they'd feel anxiety at that? Most people as far as I'm aware know that they are separate and distinct from others, so what?
Quoting TimeLine
No they aren't afraid to do it, they're just not motivated to do it. They're lazy, they have things that they want more easily. They have a job that pays the bills, they get to spend some time with loved ones, etc. It's not fear, but lack of motivation - laziness - that decides for most.
I've educated myself because I was afraid, and fear has always been an important driving force for me, but this isn't the majority. I also have very big goals, so it's easy for me to get afraid of failure, and therefore get my ass moving to learn more.
Quoting TimeLine
Responsibility to who?!
Quoting TimeLine
A few have, but not everyone. Not everyone spends their time on social networks - despite what the media makes it look like.
Quoting TimeLine
No you don't have absolute freedom. Anyone who lives in society doesn't have absolute freedom because we depend on others. For example you depend on others for your job. They choose how you dress at work, who you meet, who you talk to, etc.
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah, that's the price you're paying for not being a part of a community. I'm much the same, most of my relationships are business relationships and not friendships at the moment. But that's just because I haven't found a community that's right for me, and if you don't find it, as one of my mentors used to say, you have to create it :P
Without authenticity, this so-called 'separate and distinct' you refer to is an illusory concept that enables one to believe that they are making independent decisions and that they are unique somehow. So many people in my community think they are being 'themselves and independent' by getting tattoos and dressing the same way, they even talk the same way. The idea of the 'individual' is imagined, an ideological concept that permits a false individuation in a community that blindly follow in masses. The actual, existential independence is a completely different reality.
Again, your understanding of freedom is base; it is the freedom, the autonomy of mind that I am talking about. I may have no choice but to work and I feel like a little girl caught in a scary world surrounded by monsters, but I make choices that reflect this free-spirit that enables a power over the determined environment I live in. I chose giving up on a wealthy career in policy and law to work at grassroots level with disadvantaged children. I choose not to depend on others emotionally. The requirements that we must adhere to is an obligation, but doing so with a mindless willingness is something else.
Quoting Agustino
I am not paying any price except the odd moment of loneliness, but again, it is not a depressed loneliness but a moment of wishing that someone out there understood me and that goes away pretty quickly. And it is not so much a community as it is a 'belief' in that community; ideological beliefs are imagined, but it gives people a sense of community and so the problem is the illusion itself.
I think that someone who silences their own desperation to be autonomous by submitting and being too afraid to think and act with an independent consciousness is a greater price, despite the fact that everyone approves of them and they have a sense of some belonging.
Responsibility of autonomous decision-making, zurechnung, an accountability one holds as a moral agent to themselves.
Everyone has exactly the same choices, I don't see why you have anymore choices than the next door person.
Quoting TimeLine
Right, but other people make similar choices too. We are all aware that we must make choices, and find out what path to walk. Even the person who chooses to get a wealthy career in policy and law - despite that being extremely unlikely, most lawyers aren't very rich - they're making a choice too. And there are prices to be paid for it. Maybe they have to sleep with this other big lawyer to move up in the firm. Who knows. Maybe they have to engage in exhortation to get the witness evidence they need, etc. There's always prices to be paid, even for what are taken to be "standard" choices.
Quoting TimeLine
So you're still paying a price. You'd pay a price if you chose the opposite way too. There's always prices to be paid for making decisions. It's the opportunity cost.
Quoting TimeLine
Nonsense. Zurcucuucu whatever. Look, we are autonomous, whether we like it or not. Even that person who makes choices of willingly following what they're told, they're also autonomous, and doing a cost-benefit calculation - just like you - and choosing one path. If someone rich like Bill Gates comes to you tomorrow and says sleep with me and I'll give you 1 million dollars, you have a choice. You can choose to give up your dignity in exchange for 1 million dollars or you can choose to keep your dignity and give up 1 million. These are choices. There's no question of autonomy. In both cases you are autonomous. It's a question of values. What's more important - 1 million, or your dignity? It's a question of how to make the right choices, given that you must choose something.
I've read a few reviews and introductions to Matt Ridley's book and it's in a totally different market than Joel Osteen, so it's like comparing apples and oranges. Matt Ridley tells me why I should be optimistic about the economy, and free trade and cultural progressivism, etc. Basically he tells you "how to remain stuck to the world as it is". Joel aims to motivate, Matt aims to proselytise in favor of the status quo.
I'd agree that he preaches that prosperity will follow faith, but I don't agree that he defines prosperity purely as economic. Regardless, my initial post only pointed out what I do believe is true, and that is there is a great chasm between the religious and the non-religious as it relates to the optimism of the religious. It does seem like the non-religious want to link their pessimism to a lack of naiveté, intellectualism, and sophistication and insist everything really is as bad as we can imagine. It's the philosophy of Eeyore. If it takes a fundamentalist Christian to shake you us out of our funk, so be it.
My own experience certainly bears this out. In my later years I believe I have understood much of 'Being and Time'. But baking remains an arcane mystery to me. And alas, I can't pass on your latest baking tip to the baker of the house, as she's just gone vegan.
I liked how, when they were making their entrances, Corbyn got cheered and Rudd got booed.
I agree, this is a very important point.
Oh, well my mistake, then. My "condescension" senses are usually set to 100% when I'm on this forum, so my first reaction was to be skeptical O:)
So, my father was a history professor for many years, my mother an English teacher (still is, I took two of her classes in high school several years ago :) ). This helped me to appreciate the humanities from an early age. We had thousands of books in our home, maps, I'd play with legos and the historical playmobil sets. I would watch Ben Hur and Spartacus and all the other classic movies from 50 years ago. We also had this 4 ft. tall bronze statue of Constantine in our living room which was always very cool. After awhile I'd start to play some of the early strategy computer games like Age of Empires, Stronghold, etc. All this stuff was the foundation. I couldn't do much reading because my reading level wasn't high enough for a lot of things, but I got that covered now, thankfully.
And I guess more recently I've been intrigued about really ancient Western civ after taking an art history class in college that focused on all the little figurines and potteries and mother goddesses. I'm most in love with the Minoans. There's something intensely romantic, nostalgic, otherworldly, fascinating, everything about them. Talk about an interesting society that did its own thing!
Minoans. Awesome. Have you ever been to the Penn Museum? I'm trying to schedule a trip up there in the next year or so. They also have some lectures on youtube.
I became fascinated by the Gilgamesh epic.. trying to fathom the symbols. I grew up with a heavy focus on biblical stuff, so discovering the roots of Genesis.. the genesis of Genesis.. is fascinating to me.
I haven't even noticed the prosperity angle. His emphasis on self-love is what grabbed my attention. Although he phrases it as "God loves you." I guess I've been translating that to: "Love yourself."
I'd also point out that your reference to a band named Suicidal Tendencies doesn't exactly contradict my point that the naysayers are somewhat on the depressed side.
Keep with it Eeyore and sadly wander your thousand acres woods with Christopher whoever it is.
Touché!
Don't be silly Baden. If you reached millions of people and sold millions of copies of your books, you'd be a millionaire several times over too. It's difficult not to be a millionaire when you impact a very large number of people.
Like I said. It was just an accident.
No, you definitely don't reach millions of people by accident, regardless of what you do. Whatever you're doing, you must be doing something significant.
I didn't say anything about reaching people by accident.
Yes, and I've told you that if you reach millions of people (not by accident), then it's not unlikely that you're a multimillionaire. Why? Because it takes a lot of millions to reach people in the first place. Spreading your message takes $$.
No I won't be surprised if he tells me what I want to hear. That's his job. Duh.
You reach millions of people by being a good marketer. I'm still not seeing the connection to Jesus here.
Indeed. His merit is that he reaches to millions of people with a distilled version of the Bible that most can understand and relate to. People like him cannot decide on doctrine and truth, but they can help spread the message, which is necessary.
Joel Osteen is a business. He sells warm and fuzzy religious ideas with a big smile. That type of thing works in the US. It goes down like a bucket of sick in Europe. If you think there's merit in it, I suggest you get into it. Hint: focus on dumb people with fat wallets.
And is that a problem? Churches should be businesses in order to keep up with the economy and have sufficient resources to have an impact on people's lives. Many people, especially in Europe - including most of my relatives - have a notion that money is evil. And so if a religious organisation makes money, there's something wrong about it. Really? How the hell is an organisation supposed to be effective if it doesn't make money? How can it be effective when it has to rely on others for money, and therefore receives instructions from them? Whoever gives the money, gives the orders.
Quoting Baden
Sure, but that's better than nothing. This is what sells. Those people aren't ready to hear complicated theology, etc. They need to hear something that can help them right now. So the Church must give messages for everyone - the masses, as well as those who want to know more, and truly understand.
Quoting Baden
Yes, because everyone is so fucking depressed in Europe. For example, I'm the only optimistic person amongst my relatives. Everyone else is pessimistic. I was talking to my cousin's wife awhile ago. She was amazed I don't go on holiday and stay to work instead. She was like "Why? Life is ugly anyway, why not at least see the world, and enjoy?" And I said "It's you who said life is ugly, not me".
Quoting Baden
Dumb people with fat wallets are a strategic asset. If you want to make religion win again, then you need them. You need absolutely all the resources you can muster. What did Blaise Pascal say? You must turn the tools of the devil against him.
Quoting Mongrel
Sorry, but what's depression and self-loathing got to do with not being a gullible idiot? Have you both really drunk so much Kool-aid that you think Europeans are less happy than Americans. Denmark is the happiest place on earth and also one of the most Atheist. Some, if not most, of the best comedians are atheist (Hicks, Carlin, Gervais and etc). I probably crack, if anything, too many jokes around here. There is absolutely no connection with being religious and being happy, optimistic or funny. And it's actually quite funny that you both think there is.
Yes, I remember Jesus making that point exactly.
Baden.. something in this thread pushed your button. I really don't know what it is. I perceive that speculating out loud would be insulting.
I have to go to the hardware store anyway.
Vaya con Dios. :D
You'll get yourself a giant gold star (especially big due to your having a Catholic background) if you can explain the cultural significance of Jesus' pessimism about the prospects of a rich man entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
One of the best and least listened to things he ever said. Go on anyway, enlighten me.
I flip between him and South Park some days, both being free to watch, and neither putting me in fear that I'm going to be hypnotized into either's path of righteousness. There's value to be found in all sorts of places, from Osteen to even Bill Maher. I guess I'm just more open minded than most. Yep, that's me, but you continue to maintain the status quo, making sure that anyone of any religious mindset is purged from your home.
And, really, did you think that invoking European disapproval was going to be somehow persuasive? It's a tired argument anyway: America simple, Europe sophisticated. You guys got wiped out by a potato shortage. How smart can you be if you hinge your entire existence on a lowly potato?
Yes, one of them was Robin Williams, look what happened to him.
Quoting Baden
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20447531?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2886974/Study-Religious-people-happier-life-satisfaction-others.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12136531/Religion-can-make-you-happier-official-figures-suggest.html
Need I give you more? :s
Quoting Baden
I don't know how you have decided they're the happiest.
Quoting Hanover
:-}
Although admittedly funny in an evil sort of way. Joel would not approve.
Dare I ask what your point is here???
As for your "sources", they are two right-wing newspapers, one a recognized piece of trash that even the Trumps have sued for BS, and a jstor article I can't access. Thanks.
Quoting Agustino
You could have just Googled it but OK.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/and-the-happiest-place-on-earth-is/
Mental health associated with religiousness:
[i]"Ideas about the relationship between religiousness and mental health have changed over the past few centuries. During much of the 20th century, mental health professionals tended to deny the religious aspects of human life and often considered this dimension as either old-fashioned or pathological, predicting that it would disappear as mankind matured and developed. However, hundreds of epidemiological studies performed during the last decades have shown a different picture. Religiousness remains an important aspect of human life and it usually has a positive association with good mental health. Even though most studies have been conducted in the United States in Christian populations, in the last few years several of the main findings have been replicated in samples from different countries and religions. Two lines of investigation that need to be expanded are cross-cultural studies and application of these findings to clinical practice in different areas of the world.[3]
Considering that religiousness is frequent and has associations with mental health, it should be considered in research and clinical practice. The clinician who truly wishes to consider the bio-psycho-social aspects of a patient needs to assess, understand, and respect his/her religious beliefs, like any other psychosocial dimension. Increasing our knowledge of the religious aspect of human beings will increase our capacity to honor our duty as mental health providers and/or scientists in relieving suffering and helping people to live more fulfilling lives.[3]
Religious methods have often been used to treat the mentally ill. Initially, the priest was the most important counselor because he had the authority of religion along with psychological expertise. Faith and belief systems are very important constituents of psychological well-being and could be fruitfully utilized in psychotherapy. Their usage must be carefully evaluated. Hence, psychiatrists need to study religion vis-a-vis mental health more carefully as it is likely to increase the efficiency and acceptability of psychiatry to the masses. Finally, religion has a great influence in psychiatry including symptoms, phenomenology, and outcome.[1]"[/i]
From here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705681/
Quoting Baden
Ha Ha Ha. Daily Mail and Telegraph are reputable sources. And they didn't do the surveys themselves:
"According to figures published as part of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) “well-being” research programme people, people who say they have no religious affiliation report lower levels of happiness, life satisfaction and self-worth than those who do."
Quoting Baden
Atheists tend to struggle more with depression and sadness than believers. More importantly, being "funny" is not correlated with being happy. Robin Williams was funny - but was he happy?
Here's another one that puts Switzerland on top and Denmark third. Note that the top 10 happiest countries are among the most atheistic on the planet. Not one strongly religious country in there that I can see. The US comes in at 15.
http://www.livescience.com/50614-happiest-countries-list.html
I don't care about countries, the question is about people. And religious people tend to be happier than the non-religious. For example, I doubt that religion or its absence is the reason why Denmark is considered to be the happiest country. There's economic factors that decide that. So we have to compare people, not countries.
Quoting Baden
How are we supposed to make the Church successful if not through the use of significant financial resources which are necessary to reach out to people and spread the message?
:-} Perhaps you also forget the Parable of the Talents.
Nope. We were talking about televangelism not religion in general when it came to naivety and gullibility. My entry into the argument concerned that and debunking the obvious silly trope that atheists are a bunch of depressed Eeyore's in comparison to the religious. That's all.
Your study claims that being religious is not a mental health problem. I never said it was.
Quoting Agustino
Have you even looked at your own graph? Atheists are right in the middle.
Quoting Agustino
Correlation, not necessarily causation.
Quoting Agustino
Of course you don't because it doesn't help your argument. But even if it were the case that the average religious person was slightly happier because of their religion it wouldn't justify Hanover's comments, which at this point I'm starting not to really care about anyway.
Nope... You're not reading it. Read it. Did you miss this line?
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Baden
Yes, but the big religious groups are at the top. Look at Evangelicals for example.
Quoting Baden
It is true. Just as much as it is true that Denmark (as a country) is happier because of economic reasons.Quoting Agustino
Quoting Baden
It's not silly. It's true. Look at the facts. I gave you so many studies. And you keep crying correlation doesn't mean causation. No, it certainly doesn't, but it's a good enough indication when you lack reasons for doubting it.
Not to mention, what reason will you have to do great things for others and for the world? If your death is the end, then you don't really care what happens afterwards. But if it's not, then you want to give your best in this life. Atheists just cannot compete with the hope of religious people. Sure, whether this is false hope or real hope is an interesting question. But the fact is those who hope, will get better results and better lives here on Earth, just because they're more motivated.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Agustino
Yes, that's why religious people never get depressed. Where's that country that sells more Prozac than anywhere on earth? Must be Denmark...
Anyway, better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. I think we can agree on that, right?
No, I never said that. There's also some mental health problems associated with religious people (fear of hell and similar obsessions being one of them). I'm just saying that religious people score better in terms of mental health - on average - than atheists. And that's a fact.
Quoting Baden
Maybe that's just a rationalisation.
You got that right.
OK, I'll give you the last word on that. I got to go to bed. Thanks for the convo. (Y)
Sure. I became hip to Osteen while eating lunch. There's this breakroom in a building devoted entirely to treating cancer. Sometimes it's a really depressing place. On Sundays (I work a lot of Sundays) a bunch of housekeeping people find their way to the breakroom. They're mostly latino and black, a few white people.
At first I was put off by his demeanor, but I was listening as I ate. At this point I've never come away from one of his lectures without thinking, "Damn... he's worth listening to."
If you don't like him, fine. If you don't like Americans, fine. To each his own.
Oh, get the boring bee out of your bonnet. Hanover is American and our love is ever springtime. Night night (L)
G'night.
It's good to know it's temporary.
Here's the gist of what I said. There's this single guy who preaches an optimistic message and who's made a financial killing do it, but is actually inspiring at moments. He hasn't tapped into my moronic underbelly by appealing to Jesus, God, and all I hold so very dear so that I agree with everything he says. In fact, I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, that Mary was a virgin, or that God ever spoke to anyone. I'm not sure what will happen to my gentle soul when I die, but I doubt the whole heaven/hell thingamajig. The truth is that our religious beliefs are probably not terribly different, other than your being antagonistic to the whole enterprise, claiming religion is just what dumb fucks reference when they run out of things to say.
But let us assume that you and Comrade Marx are right that Osteen is just an opiate salesman. Have you not considered that there are times in all our lives when we need such relief and the motivation is something other than stupidity? It is laudable I suppose that you can find support on the always moving foundation of disbelief, but, yeah, I can't. I own that.
I never argued a correlation between happiness and religiosity, largely because happiness can't be well defined enough to statistically evaluate. I do think, though, that there is a pervasive negativity among the non-religious, and whether that amounts to unhappiness, I don't know. I also don't think you are quite as non-religious as you let on, but my read might be wrong, but it never has been in the past, so I doubt it.
Denmark is happy because they have Benkei.
Anyway, your argument that atheistic countries tend to be happier than religious countries, therefore it is religiosity that determines happiness is nonsense. You can't just find any distinguishing factor between happy countries and not happy countries and declare that to be the controlling variable. In Europe they use the metric system and they're happier, so it must be that. They also have littler cars. Must be that. Their houses are much older. Must be that. They talk with funny accents. Must be that.
Isn't Benkei from the Netherlands?
I mean it's not original >:O
Quoting Mongrel
I have heard of it, but haven't been able to go. Perhaps something to do, hmm...
And "up" there? Oh dear, do you live in the South? :’(
Quoting Mongrel
Oh ya, that's true! I was raised Christian, so bible stories definitely put me in an antiquated setting, hehe.
And this is exactly how people become jihadists.
Every good thing can also be used for evil. What's your point?
If happy religious people can do evil, then what's the merit in some statistic that asserts the happiness of religious people as being important? I'm sure you could poll the happiness of Taliban members and get a super high, positive percentage based off of their religiousness being a factor, but is their "happiness" a good thing merely because they're not depressed and religious? Clearly not.
First I doubt they'd be happy. But even if they were, then yes, their happiness is a good thing, what's not a good thing is their actions, clearly.
I was just making the point that religion is correlated with happiness. Most people want to be happy, they don't want to be miserable. I don't understand why you're bringing jihadists, etc. into this.
Quoting Agustino
You often do this.
Quoting Agustino
No, we only have two. One is to choose to be a rational, autonomous agent, to believe in yourself and take responsibility for your own decisions, while the other is choosing to not be a rational, autonomous agent and thus follow common beliefs by others and take no responsibility for your own decisions. To be, or not to be, that is the question.
I am not sure why you would think it nonsense that my suggestion one must learn to take responsibility for their own autonomous decision-making and hold themselves accountable as a moral agent, but think of it like this; when Adam is questioned by God for eating the apple, he immediately turns and points the blame to Eve saying it was because of her that he committed sin against the moral demands expected of him. It is a lack of autonomy that leads one to sin and when one lacks autonomy, they also lack the accountability as they do not have a sense of authenticity to reason with self-awareness and remorse. They lie to themselves.
And some people work very hard to ensure that others believe in their lies, like little children who are caught for a misdeed and are about to get into trouble deflect this possibility by making up lies to avoid being reprimanded. If I point out a moral flaw in someone, they often resort to slander or gossip to try and involve others that solidifies the assumption that something is wrong with me and therefore the flaw that I have exposed in them must also be wrong.
Baking requires a calculated precision and to create something new by learning the behaviour of each ingredient under particular temperatures, or when mixed with other ingredients, and ensuring that the overall outcome is tasty can be tough, but also it is your state of mind. When your heart is not in it, you inevitably make mistakes to this very precision and the outcome is always a bad bake. It is so existential.
It is telling that you mentioned vegan; many years ago when I owned my own little bakeshop, making cakes for those with dietary requirements was the greatest challenge; try making a gluten-free soufflé! I was famed for my Turkish delight cupcake, by the way, which is entirely vegan. 8-)
Common give me a break. There aren't just two black and white choices, there's a million possible choices in life. Say my wife asks me to shave my beard, and stop looking like a hobo, despite me liking to look like one. I'll probably shave it because it ain't such a big deal and it makes her happy - why not? Am I suddenly not rational, autonomous, bla bla bla if I don't? There's compromises that have to be made, and it's rational to make them. I like having a beard and looking like a hobo, but my wife doesn't and I also want to make my wife happy - so that's why I choose to shave it off.
Quoting TimeLine
It's nonsense because it tells me jack shit about how I ought to behave and how I ought to make my choices. It doesn't help me distinguish at all whether to choose A, or B or any other possible choice. Be a rational autonomous agent - yeah sure.
Quoting TimeLine
One is about autonomy, the other is about ABSOLUTE freedom :-}
Quoting TimeLine
And Adam was right, that's why God cursed Eve more than he cursed Adam. But He did give Eve the greater possibility of redemption by making her offspring (Jesus Christ) crush the serpent under His heel (and redeem the whole of mankind).
Quoting TimeLine
This is nothing but pure strategy. Of course they do! It's not because they necessarily care what others believe, but it's because they want to get others to act a certain way. For example, when I got my first clients about 1 year ago, do you think I went up to them and told them "look I have no experience, I don't really know what I'm doing, but I think I can make a better website for your business" etc. Of course not! I wouldn't have gotten even 1 single project if I did that. I had to tell them I'm an expert who has worked on many projects before (and I had examples I made from scratch to prove it). That was the only way to get them to let me work. Then I inquired about their problems, listened, and went from there. I heard they were unhappy about manually doing their salaries (for example), so I created a database for them. I said I can get it done for you, tailor-made! I went, learned, and did it. Then I've done it for many more clients, who all turned out to have a similar problem. And so on. But without that initial foot in the door, it wouldn't have worked.
So what, you're now going to say "Agustino has no moral consciousness" etc. etc.? That's bull. We need to exaggerate sometimes to get things to work. That's part of the process. We believe in ourselves first, and then others do too. If I want to help my priest expand the presence of our local Church do you think I'm gonna tell him "uhh I have no experience running and organising such a community" - no, I'm going to tell him I'm capable to bring new people in, organise events for people, and get people truly engaged with the faith again - I'll tell him I'll boost Church attendance, and increase donations! Of course! Then he'll actually give me a shot, and I'll do my magic and improve things. And so forth. This is nothing but strategy - this is absolutely necessary to get things done in the world. What does the Bible say - be wise as serpents!
This is why we need the face-palm emoticon.
And it was the woman of the apocalypse that crushed the serpent under her heel.
Quoting Agustino
One minute you have a girlfriend, next minute you are married, another minute you are chaste, you sound like a teenager. Are you an engineer with business relationships and if so, why on earth do you spend so much of your time on here? Trying to obtain a level of experiential legitimacy does not make your arguments sound all of a sudden.
Get some sleep, man. I just woke up after seven hours of sleep and you're still on here.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, but what they want in others is entirely narcissistic and devoid of moral accountability. They love only those people that agree with them, despite the fact that the foundation of their relationship with others is completely deceptive in order to maintain and strengthen this very narcissism. If I love someone who accepts my deceit rather than exposing my flaws, I love my narcissism more. This is what I meant about authenticity and being capable of loving.
I'm not sure. I was reading God Behaving Badly and it explains that the traditional understanding of that passage is that it refers to Jesus crushing the head of the serpent by overcoming sin and death on the Cross.
Quoting TimeLine
I've never said I was married. It was a hypothetical example. Everyone here knows I'm not married, everyone knows I currently don't have a girlfriend. How come you're the only one who still has no clue after reading so many of my posts?! And it's quite simple really - not rocket science. "SAY my wife bla bla" What does the word "say" mean in that context? Pretend, Imagine, etc. Say I have a million dollars. I don't see why you're having such trouble with the English language. It's your native tongue after all. How come a bloody foreigner understands English better than a trained native-speaking lawyer?! :P
Quoting TimeLine
What do you expect, most of my work is at the computer, the forum is always left on, and I get messaged if there's replies.
Quoting TimeLine
Then that's their problem - being narcissistic. Not "not being morally autonomous and rational agents" and all that claptrap.
Duuuuuuuuuuuude...
How do you stay in power so long in a place like Russia? Also, his comments are so sophisticated.
Take for example his comment on 'patriotic (emphasis on these Russians being patriotic) Russians being the hackers behind the meddling of the US elections'. Obviously, he can't say it himself; but, this is just another way to pad yourself on the back from what came out of the meddlings of these 'patriotic Russians'. The guy is just playing the system magnanimously.
The more interesting question is how do you get in power, and how do you consolidate that power. Once you are in power, and you've consolidated the power, the way of staying in power is by using force, and doing a sufficiently good job that makes people like you. Doing the things your people want is of key importance. You can't stay in power for long if you totally suck for your country.
And you get in power by having access or gaining access to key information that can be used to blackmail key decision makers. The key is controlling secret services (which control the flow of information) OR the army (brute force). Once in power, you remove opposition and install your own support network (where key players are controlled via the possibility of blackmail). Then you promote and use other talented people to maintain your power. Generally you're aiming to scout for people who want to be high enough to have social status, are talented, but aren't highly ambitious - are more towards the lazy side.
Your initial post actually pertained to Osteen in particular, and how his message was optimistic, not religious people in general. But, we can discuss that, if you'd like.
Perhaps our experiences differ, but I don't know that religious people are in general any more optimistic than the non-religious (though they may be happier, on average). Perhaps they're each optimistic or pessimistic about different things, or perhaps religious people (which we can here take to refer to Christians) have a rather warped view of the matter. A good chunk of American Christians believe that Jesus is returning in the next forty years, give or take. If I believed that my lord and savior was going to return in the near future, trailing clouds of glory, ready to preside over the End of Days, and to separate the sheep from the goats and rapture the faithful into Heaven, I might be optimistic, too (I myself am in fact guardedly optimistic, though for very different reasons).
But, the non-religious may concern themselves with matters such as global warming, threats to crop species, declining biodiversity, and myriad other things which may not worry those who believe that (1) God will provide, and (2) this is all going to end in the near future anyway, so what's the difference?
The religious right for the most part hitched its wagon to Donald Trump in the 2016 election, a candidate who ran one of the bleakest and most cynical presidential campaigns in modern history, decrying everything from free trade, to rampant crime in the inner cities, to the Chinese conspiracy of global warming, and who promised to "make America great again," (i.e. insinuating that it wasn't already great). That doesn't seem like optimism in my book.
A certain brand of Christians in this country are also consumed with what they view as the moral decay of society, as exemplified in the decline of school prayer, the legalization of abortion, the rise of gay rights, and other satanic developments. They see a "War on Christmas," and believe that Christians (in the United States) are "persecuted" for practicing their faith. Again, this doesn't seem optimistic.
Contrast that message with writers such as the aforementioned Matt Ridley in The Rational Optimist which touts the power of free ideas in a free market to solve the world's major problems (from energy to the food supply, to disease), or that of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature, which charts a decline in violence in the modern era. Neither Pinker or Ridley are religious believers, you will note.
This IS optimistic. Yes, the present is gloomy, but the future is golden. That's how it is for the religious. Present circumstances matter less than future ones. If you have hope, you're happy and motivated. Whereas for the atheists - their present is golden, but their future is pitch black - they have no future.
Quoting Arkady
I don't give a damn about this empty and vacuous optimism. That's not even optimism - it's laziness and saying "Eh. Things are good. No need to work! That's it, all we need to do is support the status quo. We can kick back and just enjoy our great civilisation" That's the root of decay.
Optimism is an attitude about the future, not about the present. If I'm optimistic I'm hopeful for the future. To be hopeful for the future means to be pessimistic about the present, among other things.
Decline in violence? Sure, we just passed through WWI and WWII less than 100 years ago - arguably the most bloody and violent conflict in history - and some fools tell us there's a decline in violence, because statistically, comparing the Earth's population to the number of violent deaths, etc. etc. give me a break. That's BS. Percentages are deceitful. The greater the absolute values become (total population number) the smaller the percentage points become (less % die in a violent way). This doesn't mean anything though. Just the effect of scale.
Also, I don't feel one single iota happier knowing that free market will solve the world's energy problems. What the hell does that even mean?! The free market >:O >:O as if this free market was anything but me and you. If me and you don't solve the world's energy problems, the free market will do jack shit for us.
OPTIMISM =/ *Insert Abstract Idea here* will take care of you
Stupid and Lazy Bob goes to work for corporate America - "Hey! We're doing well man, things are going great, the free market gives so much to us, better healthcare, we can cure so many diseases that we couldn't cure 100 years ago, our technology is growing so quickly and solving our problems, ain't that great now mate?"
And of course Bob ain't doing jack shit for the world - just putting in more dough in the pockets of rich Wall Street Bankers. Why? Because he has an excuse - the free market's doing all the work for him!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/follow-up-on-london-bridge-attack/2017/06/04/5216bbb2-48c5-11e7-8de1-cec59a9bf4b1_story.html?utm_term=.519d6c52a475
Really?
Depressingly, yes: radical Islam is all too real.
ISIS is to Islam as the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity. Yes, they might be of those religions, but to refer to Islam ironically as the religion of peace because of one organisation (or four if we include Boko Haram, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda) is like referring to Christianity ironically as the religion of tolerance because of one organisation (or more if we include the Westboro Baptist Church, Hutaree, and any others).
Just say: "Yes, I guess any religion can be used as an excuse to soak the ground with blood."
You forgot Al Shabaab. And the PLO. And the machete-wielding mobs of Bangladesh. And the Saudi religious police. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. And Abu Sayyaf. And Ansar al-Shari'a. And...
There are monsters of every variety. You should attack them, not some expansive belief system of which the violent are a very small minority.
You might as well attack men and sexual desire because men with sexual desire make up the huge majority of rapists in the world.
Yes, there are monsters of every variety. Some groups have a higher proportion of monsters, than others, however. Islam has a higher proportion of radicals in the modern era than does, say, Unitarianism or Mormonism, and denying that fact in the name of some ecumenical whitewashing doesn't make the problem go away. The Westboro Baptist Church, as odious as they are, restricts its activities to protesting, unlike radical Islamists.
I'm not denying that fact. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to then blame Islam. Men make up a far higher proportion of rapists than women. Do we then hold having an X and a Y chromosome to blame? Do we start cracking down on anyone with sexual desire? It would be ridiculous, as is all this Islamophobia.
Blame ISIS, blame Al-Qaeda, blame the Ku Klux Klan, blame the National Liberation Army, blame the IRA, blame the Shining Path, blame the drug cartels, blame the Mafia, blame the rapists. But don't blame Islam or Christianity or Mexicans or men.
The violence encouraged by parts of Islam far outstrips anything Christianity - or any other religion really - has done.
Men are more violent than women, and people rationally fear men more than they do women (just as they rationally fear young men to a greater degree than they fear elderly men). Testosterone, the masculinizing hormone, is implicated in certain adverse behavioral outcomes (e.g. increased aggression). Do Muslims secrete a particular hormone making them more prone to violence than Jains or Buddhists?
I can blame the institutional practices and behavior of certain practitioners of Catholicism in, for instance, the church abuse scandal. I can also say that the Catholic church had widespread, systemic issues going almost right to the top of the organization in fomenting this problem and its failure to deal with it. Does that make me "Catholic-phobic?"
If Islam is indeed a religion of peace, then it prompts the question as to why it produces such a relatively high proportion of violent radicals, and why it feels the need to violently squelch dissent, apostasy, and what it perceives to be blasphemy. Are its practitioners simply obtuse in interpreting their holy books to a larger degree than most other religions? I would find that hard to believe, as many young Muslims' education seems to consist of almost nothing but reading the Koran.
Notice that your issue is with the Catholic Church, not with Christianity. And so by take same token, your issue should be with ISIS and Al-Qaeda and so on, not with Islam.
We had the same issues in Christian societies of the past. The issue wasn't with Christianity but with the wider social context. Look at the places where these groups originate from.
You just have to look at the fact that the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists to see that the Islamic faith isn't the problem, just as you just have look at the fact that the vast majority of men aren't rapists to see that being a man isn't the problem.
ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, etc, are drawn from the ranks of Sunni or Shiite Muslims. They are not a particular, separate denomination of Islam. And I don't argue that all Christian denominations are equally odious: they aren't. I hold Pentecostals as a group in much lower regard than I hold, say, Episcopalians or Presbyterians.
Yes, I am an no defender of the history of Christianity. But we're talking about the modern world.
Again, I've never said that the vast majority of Muslims are terrorists. I said that Islam produces violent radicals to a greater degree than virtually any other religion in the modern world.
Would you be willing to say that, because the vast majority of American police officers do not conduct their job duties in a racist or racially discriminatory manner, that American law enforcement writ large therefore does not have a problem with its treatment of black citizens of the United States?
Maybe, but it's striking that they don't seem to have any clear agenda in the way Mormon terrorists did. Radicalized youths.... who knows why they really do it?
Ecologist and author E.O. Wilson once called human beings "absurdly easy to indoctrinate" (or something close to that). I think people sometimes underestimate how powerful a drive a set of beliefs can be, especially for those who are susceptible to being swayed by them, due to youth, inexperience, social desperation, lack of education, or what have you.
The fact that a significant number of radical Muslims seem willing to not only risk death for their cause, but to willingly engage in operations in which their violent death is part of the plan is rather striking, and should be disquieting to those who claim that such radicals don't "really" believe in what they profess to believe.
The one and the same.
Yea, I once said that I'm sometimes curious as to what transpires on websites which recruit jihadists, and that I'm also curious as to what goes on on pedophile websites, the dark web, and other assorted disreputable areas of the internet. However, that's just not something I want a record of in my web browsing history.
It is striking that no demands are made. In the previous terrorist wave in the UK, which was by Provisional IRA fanatics, there was at least a known agenda, and some kind of a policy (not always successfully carried out) of issuing warnings beforehand. The IRA were asking something of the drunks in a Guildford bar when they blew them up. This does somehow make a difference, although it makes the approach no less appalling.
Whether Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever it is, there is (there has to be) a connection between what people believe and how they behave. We don't have any difficulty attributing behavior we like to particular beliefs; our accounting should work both ways.
New Testament Christianity wasn't the same as medieval Christianity, but it was Medieval Christianity that Medieval people believed in. The Islam of today may or may not be responsible for more violent and/or extremist behavior than it was in the past, but the Islam of today is what we are dealing with.
What we should avoid saying is "all Moslems are alike." Clearly that isn't true. We can say that this or that Moslem group is narrowly, rigidly conservative; or that this or that Moslem group is quite flexible and inclusive. Or we can say that these (listed) Moslem clerics preach violence and they have a following, or that these (listed) Moslem clerics preach flexible acceptance of others' beliefs and they have a following.
I just don't buy the idea that there is no relationship between a faith and the behavior it supports/produces, whether that be Christianity or Islam, or any other belief system.
To my mind it makes it less "I represent Islam" and more: "Look at me! I'm a bloody maniac! And now I'm gone!"
Some apologists for radical Islam (and you are clearly not one) decry what they believe to be the apparent homogenization of Muslims by its critics, critics who toss off claims about "the Muslim world," as if all of the Muslim-majority countries (and communities of Muslims in non-Muslim-majority countries) were part of one big pot of stew which tastes the same throughout.
While it's true that we should not let the out-group homogeneity bias hold sway in our judgments of "the other," I don't think that the disparate cultures, histories, and practices of different communities of Muslims worldwide serves as the rebuttal which the apologists believe that it does. Indeed, I think that it implies the completely opposite conclusion.
When looking for a cause of a phenomenon found in myriad places and times, one looks for pertinent commonalities among occurences of this phenomenon. That is, which similarities did the occurences share? If we see that religiously-motivated violence is especially prevalent in nations and cultures as disparate as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Somalia, nations spread across multiple continents, borne of different histories, with different ethnic demographics, etc, it is those very differences which implicate Islam in that violence, as the differences among them cannot be part of the common cause.
Turns out... that was wrong. I'm not sure the people who blew up the World Trade Center wanted anything at all (except the blaze of glory?)
No, I'm not an apologist for Islam; Islam is one of several religions I don't much like. But, whether we like it or loathe it, we should at least be articulate about it's nature -- as you are in the quoted paragraph here.
Some people want to put religion in the "above reproach" column. Like, sacred beliefs just can't be criticized. Of course they can be criticized--they should, they can, they shall, they must be criticized. Sometimes the same, sometimes other people want to put "oppressed races" in that column too: Blacks are oppressed and therefore black culture just can't be criticized. White people aren't oppressed (we're too busy always oppressing everyone everywhere) so we can be criticized freely--as we should be--but along with everybody else. To be Human is to be flawed, and flaws that we can do something about should be brought forward.
Pick a group, any group--blacks, gays, women, moslems, straight white men, cat owners, people who carefully recycle--whoever, and they will be found flawed--just not all flawed in the exact same way.
What I see on both sides of squabbles over Islam is way too much arm-chairing. "My principles force me to conclude x."
And I think was just engaging in that. I'd love less of a logical argument about why we should pin certain acts of violence on Islam itself and some empirical evidence.
Show the link between the recent bloodshed in London and any version of Islam from 700AD onward. Showing that link requires some justified true belief about reasoning behind the attack. What was it? What Islamic principle is that reason in line with?
Otherwise just join the vast majority of us and admit that you don't know.
Ahh, the hypocrisy. As if the West was innocent and as civilized as we say we are.
I have been reading this around here and there, that the only thing that will save this administration (Trump et al.) is war.
So, now we wait and see if a pretext can be found to start this war, against the uncivilized and pagan world of the Muslims, or North Korean leaders, or Iranians, or who knows what enemies can be found to battle against next?
The attackers are dead, so in this case, I doubt we'll learn much more about their motivations, at least not from them directly. Perhaps they left behind writings or communications with others which might shed more light upon their thinking, but their motives are particularly clear: to kill as many people as possible. Initial reports said that at least one of the attackers was shouting "Allah akbar" as he set about his killing spree. The fact that we don't have a granular understanding of the beliefs and desires of each and every member of, for instance, ISIS, doesn't preclude our knowing that they are motivated by radical Islamic beliefs.
I'm sorry if you find this "arm-chairing," but the empirical evidence is there in news story after news story about radical Islamists killing and maiming throughout the globe (including plenty of killing of other Muslims). Perhaps a bit of logical clarity is called for here?
A tu quoque fallacy and a non-sequitur wrapped into one. Criticizing radical Islam doesn't imply that the critic believes Western civilization to be blameless in all things, nor does the sins of Western civilization in any way justify Islamic terrorism.
Now, there's your big fat fallacy if there ever was one. An overgeneralization of epic proportions as well as a fallacy of composition and well, a lot more I should add.
How so? You have to put some meat on these bones if you want to be taken seriously. The usual carping about "the West, Trump, blah blah blah" isn't going to cut it.
We obviously don't call an act of terror by white Christian supremacists as 'radical Christianity/Christians'; but, are willing so promptly to justify our derogatory claim about Islam by the acts of single few in proportion to the great many peaceful, friendly, and docile Muslims. Why is that?
Contrary to your "obvious" claim, I do think that groups such as the KKK were at least partially motivated by their religious extremism, as they were motivated by not only racial animus towards blacks, but by religious/theological animus towards Catholics and other "false Christians." But to say that, in the year 2017, the KKK and Islamic radicals each pose an equivalent threat is a false equivalency.
That's why.
I might be talking out of my ass; but, Nazi Germany waged their own holy war against inferior infidels in the name of Christianity/Christ. You don't see that in history books nowadays; but, I think is very true.
Now, let us assume that it is true despite what the current representative of Catholic Christians might say. Then, that would make Christianity and the people who followed through with the ethnic cleansing and genocide against the heretics during WWII as the religion with the most blood on its hands.
I don't see discussions about this despite there being quite a lot of evidence in support of my claims.
Does anyone else see the fallacy I am committing in the above? I hope so!
You said "Islam" dude. And then you changed it to:
Quoting Arkady
Bolding mine. I'm assuming you're backing down from the former statement?
Forget granular. Tell me about the very broad agenda of radical Islam.
Yes, that is a categorical fallacy. Just as Hitler didn't represent the entire population of Germany, so neither do a few radical Muslims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Nazis killed those who it deemed to be inferior, to be sure, but I don't think that their being "infidels" have anything to do with it. Are you suggesting that the Nazis' primary motivation stemmed from Christian extremism?
Gays, Africa, and the poo poo:
https://youtu.be/euXQbZDwV0w
Yeah, yeah, we all know that actions speak louder than words. So, why hijack the political narrative and not give the other 85% (?) a voice too?
I'm afraid I don't follow your question. I've repeated over and over again that I don't believe that all Muslims are terrorists.
As for the agenda of radical Islam, the stated goals of ISIS is to establish a new Islamic caliphate, and, if the treatment of those under their control thus far is any indication, said caliphate would be ruled by an extremely severe and violent form of Sharia. Other radical Muslims' goals are to squelch any perceived slight to their religion, be it mockery from a cartoon or blasphemy or apostasy by a co-religionist.
It was certainly a pretext for war, was it not?
So you just misspoke when it seemed your target was Islam as opposed to radical Islam?
Quoting Arkady
I think this is ground zero of the confusion. Some authors use "Islamism" to refer to the goal of creating an Islamic state. Pakistan is a product of Islamism. Pakistan is not a terrorist organization.
Others use "Islamism" to refer to terrorists.
It sickens me to have to agree with Michael, but the ambiguity in the use of this term allows a fair portion of contemporary strife to be identified as Islam. See what I mean?
Nazis were motivated by many bizarre and odious beliefs, including exhortations of "blood and soil," nationalism, and xenophobic hatred and war-mongering, but nothing I've ever seen or read about WW2 indicates that the Nazi party or the German military was motivated primarily by religion, Christianity or otherwise. (In any event WW2 ended in 1945, and we are here speaking of 2017.)
Context, context, context
A good follow up question to the lady in the debate is something of the sort:
Has the number went up since 2001 or gone down, and what was that number throughout history, and what factors contribute to it changing? Based on the answer to that complex question we can assess the claim as to whether Islam is a religion of violence or not, as many do when using 'radical' and 'Islam' in one sentence.
If we're as committed to living in a peaceful and harmonious world, then that question is quite important, don't you think?
Well, I'm quite sure Nazi Germany thought of itself as the continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, which they admired greatly in their pictorial depiction of Hitler being a messiah to the German people.
Nazi artwork and symbolism are rife with Christian symbolism and elements.
All radical Muslims are Muslims; it doesn't follow that all Muslims are radical, and I've never said otherwise.
While I may at times "target" Islam as a whole (as I would any other religion), I don't regard all Muslims as terrorists, a point which I've made repeatedly.
I am familiar with the term "Islamism" as referring to an aggressive and violent form of Islam, often with political, as well as religious aims.
Why would that sicken you? I'm lovely.
I must admit that I'm not a student of Nazi artwork (though I'm not sure how Hitler being depicted as the Messiah is overtly Christian; indeed, Christians believe in but one Messiah, and Jews in none - yet), but, again, if it is your contention that the Nazi party (and/or German military) was on a mission of Christian extremism, I think that you have a rather steep evidential hill to climb.
That's not my point here. My point is that a few people (Hitler, radical Muslims, etc.) ought not and should not hijack a religion based on the acts of a few madmen.
We really should be above this point already, based on history. That we don't, shows that peace and harmony are not on everyone's agenda.
Quoting Arkady
OK. Hold up. I thought this was an easy point to get past.. you misspoke.. move on. But you're doubling down on this. Only insane people think all Muslims are terrorists. That's not a thing.
Even George Dumbshit Bush knew better than to appear to being attacking Islam itself. It's a very, very, very, VERY, important distinction to be clear about, to the tune of insidious bigotry.
Quoting Arkady
I just told you there's another usage.
I agree that they should not, but some have.
Ok. I feel that I am rapidly losing the thread of your point. Let me summarize what I've said.
(1) Islam (yes, the entirety of Islam, that is, the religion as a whole) produces a greater percentage of violent radicals in the modern age than virtually any other major religion.
(2) Even given (1), it does not follow that most (or even a significant percentage) of Muslims are terrorists.
(3) The fact that apparently religiously-motivated violence occurs across Muslim-majority countries with vastly different cultures and histories does not exculpate the role of Islam (radical or otherwise) in fomenting this violence. On the contrary, it points to Islam as a causative factor.
You may agree or disagree with any of this, but I've not "misspoken": this is exactly what I believe.
So then, the issue boils down to a couple of things.
1. Are we ignorant, when condemning a religion by the actions of a few twisted men?
2. Is there any ulterior motive in condemning a religion by the actions of the few if not due to ignorance?
3. Are we really as educated and civilized as we think we are?
It would be ignorant to say that all practitioners of said religion are equally violent or loathsome, but it would not be ignorant to say that that religion has a unique problem with producing violent radicals when it in fact does have such a problem.
Do you have an ulterior motive for constantly searching for ulterior motives in others? I think this bears some looking into.
I'm actually more educated and civilized than I believe myself to be, strangely enough.
Is it the case that, because the vast majority of American police officers do not conduct their job duties in a racist or racially discriminatory manner, that American law enforcement writ large therefore does not have a problem with its treatment of black citizens of the United States?
My point is that by connecting the violent actions of a radicalized youth to Islam, you aren't saying much.
You admit that you don't really understand the thought processes of such a youth: is the violent motive really an expression of faith or is it disgust with aspects of Western society that in the process of trying to find expression stumble upon radical Islam?
We'll leave the destination of the connection aside. All you gave me for the agenda of radical Islam was the same agenda that generated Pakistan, which is not a terrorist organization.
Quoting Arkady
The modern age? Late modern starts in the 1700's. Is that what you mean?
Islam is a 1300 year old religion. What do you mean by the entirety of Islam?
Quoting Arkady
Does it? My experience with humanity is that aggression, disappointment, fear, etc. go looking for legitimate means of expression. Those emotions will be subsumed by any lightning rod in the environment. Can Islam function as such a rod? Yes, it can. If that's your point, I agree.
I just don't like the language that spills easily into intolerance and bigotry.
Really? That seems to be the crux of the matter, i.e. whether said actions are connected to Islam.
What I said is that one doesn't need a granular understanding of each and every member of ISIS to know that they are motivated by radical Islamist beliefs. Not knowing the entirety of a person's motivations for doing X doesn't imply that one knows nothing of the person's motivations for doing X.
If radical Islam gives voice to those who are otherwise disgusted by Western society, why is it disproportionately Muslims who violently act out against it, as opposed to other groups who might share that disgust? Perhaps because Islam is a bastion of illiberal beliefs?
No, it just harbors terrorists. What's your point? Someone is not a terrorist if their ultimate goal is a Muslim theocratic state?
Apologies for not defining my terms sufficiently. I am here speaking of the late 20th century-present.
I mean Islam as a religion, a community of believers.
It seems that Islam is a more effective lightning rod than some other religions. I wonder why that is?
I don't like bigotry or intolerance, either.
http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know
Ah, of course: Islamic terrorism is a result of the West's meddling, foreign policy, and horrid respect for human rights. I'm glad you reminded me. Problem solved, folks: Islam is just peachy.
Everything you need to know about this conspiratorial screed can be found here:
That's right: Gadaffi was awful because he was too independent. Damn the man's accursed individualistic streak!
No he wasn't. He was as shit as Jim Carey, Steve Martin, Rick Mayall in things like Bottom and Drop Dead Fred, Rowen Atkinson in things like Mr. Bean. I suppose these guys are (or were) really good at that kind of crap comedy aimed at children, idiots and people with a taste ranging from terrible to mediocre. And Peter Kay has to feature prominently on any list of worst comedians. And Eddie Murphy. And Lenny Henry. And Omid Djalili.
Yes, there's a connection to Islam. That alone isn't saying much.
Quoting Arkady
ISIS is a Johnny-come-lately that PBS's Frontline says is a direct result of GW Bush's ill advised allegiance to Maliki. Apparently numerous military personnel tried to explain to Bush that Maliki was going to create a disaster in Iraq. ISIS was the disaster.
Back in the day, we called extremist Islam Al Qaeda. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there was all sorts of confidence in the US government that the goals of this diverse collection of angry Muslims was understood. It wasn't understood.... at all.
We know that Bin Laden somehow got the idea that he was God's favorite son while fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. He doesn't appear to have understood that God didn't defeat the Russians there. The US did. The US was sneaky about it.
Quoting Arkady
You told me radical Islam's agenda is to create a Muslim state. ?
Quoting Arkady
Good question. Does the view from your armchair help out with answering that?
Quoting Arkady
Then I'm on your side 100%.. although I will maintain that 25% of the world's Jews are assholes.
There's a causal connection, which is saying quite a bit. The fact is, these bad actors aren't merely radicals who happen to be Muslim: they're radical Muslims.
ISIS doesn't exhaust the universe of Islamist violence. And this is just another attempt to foist blame onto the West. Islam has to own the monsters it creates. Take some responsibility.
What does this have to do with the fact that Al Qaeda is a radical Muslim organization?
ISIS's is. The radical Muslims who kill bloggers they don't like are avenging perceived slights to their religion. The radical Muslims who attempt to murder girls for going to school are trying to enforce a violent patriarchy. The radical Muslims who commit honor killings against their daughters are trying to avenge a perceived slight to their honor. The Islamic theocrats who hang homosexuals from cranes are violently enforcing their strict sexual mores.
I don't even know what to say to these. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they're failed attempts at humor.
Could you do me the courtesy of answering my question about police practices above?
It's interesting, because Curb Your Enthusiasm is much, much better, and not a steaming pile of shit like Seinfeld.
Radical Islam is associated with violence. News flash.
Quoting Arkady
Yeeaah... I know that ISIS is recent flash in the pan. You are the one who pointed to ISIS to explain to me what radical Islam is. And no, I'm not trying to foist any blame. Watch the Frontline documentaries about ISIS (there are at least 2 of them).
LOL. Where did you think ISIS came from? Some scripture in the Koran?
Quoting Arkady
You see, this is where your armchair is going to let you down. Al Qaeda is a termed coined by the FBI. It's not a Muslim organization... radical or otherwise.
Quoting Arkady
I actually am on your side. You're against intolerance and bigotry. I believe that.
I didn't read your thing about police practices. I'd like to, though.
The thing about 25% of the Jews is a personal joke about my being 25% German. I find it endlessly funny. I'm not too surprised that nobody else thinks it is.
To be fair, the past participle of the infinitive "to go" is gone, not went, which you correctly conjugated later in the sentence.
Is it also a news flash that Islam produces a disproportionate number of violent radicals relative to other major world religions in the modern world?
This is so confused, I don't even know what to make of it. ISIS is a "recent flash in the pan." What does that even mean? (I know the meaning of the term, I just don't know what your point is.)
I used ISIS as one example of radical Islam. I in fact named a multitude of Islamist terror groups in my exchange with Michael had you bothered to read it. Nowhere did I suggest that it is the only such organization or that its goals were representative of all religiously-motivated violence carried out by Muslims.
Al Qaeda is not composed of radical Muslims? That is news to me.
I had a picture I took of the Seinfeld restaraunt when I was in NYC. I was going to upload it but came upon my kitty cat pic first, so that's what I sent instead.
Enjoy.
How much history of Islam have you read? How, exactly, do you think it spread throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond?
If there is no God, how did they infuse bacon into the maple syrup?
This is where my joke about Jewish assholes comes in handy. In the modern era, nobody has done holocaust and attempt at global take-over like the Germans. German-ness is obviously causal here. It was common for people in the Reagan generation (people his age, not the generation while he was president) to actually believe that. They thought Germans were inherently evil and that at any moment the Germans would start trying to take over the world again.
Maybe it's a little more helpful to note that the German culture was severely ailing when the Nazis took over. Germans have been around for ages. Historically, they hardly ever tried to take over the world or kill Jews.
Quoting Arkady
OK, so would you like to try again? What is the agenda of radical Islam?
Debatable. There were numerous and quite brutal pogroms against the Jews along the Rhine during the Middle Ages. The Carolingian Empire and Holy Roman Empire both styled themselves as the reconstituted Western Roman Empire and tried to conquer large swaths of Europe.
In any event, Islam has tried to basically take over the world and has always had anti-semitic streaks.
According to Richard Foltz, Islam primarily spread peacefully. People were attracted to it.
A worldwide caliphate. They could not be more explicit about this.
So your point is that I'm right to be 25% anti-Semitic. LOL.
Arabs are Semitic. LOL.. again.
Poppycock.
Okay, I admit that I'm impressed.
The beliefs and propaganda propounded by the Nazi party no doubt played a causal role in Germany's warmongering. What of it?
Their attempt to exterminate the Jews was just an expression of anger at their humiliating defeat in WWI. We really should have taken time to understand the Nazis and see how they were hurting, and asked if there was anything we could have done to ease their feelings of alienation in the world community. Really, it's the fault of Britain, the USA, and their allies. Let's not be a bigoted Germanophobe and blame any problems with German culture at the time which might have precipitated this catastrophe.
Already answered this above. Depends on the radical Muslim.
Again, could you do me the favor of answering my question regarding police practices?
Excellent. So now we can connect that agenda with the recent bloodshed in London.
Uh...
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-arabs-are-semites-too-fallacy/
Quoting Mongrel
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
Quoting Mongrel
Yeah. The sources of and influences on these kinds of attackers have as their goal a worldwide caliphate.
Freakin' good point. Yes. Islam has a problem.
I got into studying Islam in an attempt to answer that very question. Why don't we hear the voices of Muslim clerics loud and clear, condemning terrorism? Yes, there are a few here and there, but where is the Sunni Pope weighing in on the issue?
There is no Sunni Pope. That's why we don't hear him.
But can't you grant me that I also put up a good point: that Nazism is not a testament to the German character. The fact that Nazis were German does not show us a causal connection (vis a vis German-ness causing people to try to take over the world)?
I tell everyone that it's her best feature. Yeah that engaged expression is difficult to compete with, lol.
Well, I'm so glad we got that settled.
This analogy is not parallel. Islam is a religion, whereas "German" identifies an ethnicity. There's nothing about having certain phenotypic features that go into making one a German that causes one to be anti-semitic or what have you. But there can, or at the very least, may be, features in a religion as large, old, and complex as Islam that explain contemporary Islamic terrorism.
I wouldn't say explain. We can find aspects of Islam that are conducive to violence. Islamic terrorism can only be understood by placing it in historical context, not religious context.
This makes zero sense.
Wosret - Your cat's nose is a tumor. Have it looked at.
You're Jewish, aren't you?
I believe that the propaganda propounded by the Nazi party, as well as strains of xenophobia, scapegoating, and nationalism (some of which are disturbingly close to tendencies seen in our time in some countries) likely contributed to the human rights catastrophe which was WW2. No, I don't believe that "German-ness" causes people to try to take over the world. Indeed, Germany may well be the West's last, great hope (and I include the United States in that). I admit to not being a great fan of Merkel when she was pals with Bush, but I believe her to be a level-headed, rational, principled leader.
There was a thread a while back which asked something to the effect of "Is Islam inherently violent"? There are other religions which have a violent history and with violent parts of the their holy books (Christianity comes to mind here), and yet have managed to overcome this history, largely through selective reading of their holy books. I hope that Islam has the capacity to do the same.
There's a part of every culture that is good-hearted and full of hope. Young people usually have a hard time accepting a brutal, hate-filled outlook (Young Republicans and Hitler Youth excepted.)
That question is very complex.
First, we should recognize that there really isn't a representative for Muslim's around that world that can speak for them. We all should know about the feud between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Furthermore, and this is my personal opinion, there's a great deal of hostility from the right in the US towards Muslim's. Anyone recalls the huge spat in regards to building a mosque near ground zero in NYC? We have gun manufacturers basically printing the cross and quotes from the Bible on their guns that they sold to soldiers to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nobody really cares about what Islam really is in the US, at least from the right.
What else should I mention? The general thing is that the US doesn't really like Islam. That's my opinion on the matter.
I have a great deal of hostility toward that last apostrophe....
I'm illiterate and uneducated, crucify me.
If it were not for Grammarly and spell-check, I'd be banned already.
I will, thank you.
Must be a conspiracy. Happens.
Here's a problem you might want to consider. There are many theists who think that not believing in God (atheism) is the greatest evil, the root of all evil. These people may be spread across many different religions, and depending on the attitude toward tolerance and forgiveness, these people may or may not be inclined to act against this apprehended evil. If some are so inclined, to rise up against this apprehended evil, how are you going to portray these actions, this perceived fight against evil, as itself evil?
True story.
Im reading these Facebook posts about a number of Gulf states cutting ties with Qatar with people calling the kettle back. Quite depressing that these people seem to know how the world works so well and yet sound as ignorant as possible.
Is this too farfetched and could it not or has not happened already?
This is a question worth an entire book, so can anyone point me out a book to delve in on the matter instead of making snarky posts?
There's no record of any of your comments being deleted over the past few days. However, if you're certain, there's a slim possibility there's a bug with this discussion that makes some comments disappear.
When we bomb them, it's called liberation, respect for human rights, and when they bomb us it's terrorism. When we sell arms there it's trade, when they swap bomb-making information here, its a network of conspiracy.
Wiki tells me, that by and large, arms are produced by nominally Christian countries, and exported to Muslim countries.
Arms exports
2012-2016
Rank Supplier Arms Exp
1 United States 47169
2 Russia 33186
3 China 8768
4 France 8561
5 Germany 7912
6 United Kingdom 6586
7 Spain 3958
8 Italy 3823
9 Ukraine 3677
10 Israel 3233
But it's Islam that's the source of violence? It's all because of some lines in the Koran? Really? Somewhere in the Bible, I seem to remember a line about taking the beam out of your own eye before you attempt to extract the mote from another's. Do you really not see any connection?
Causal connection? Men create religions, they imagine political ideologies, the global homicide rates reflect a clear aggregate in findings that show men far outweigh in crime statistics notwithstanding murder, but rape, manslaughter, burglary, domestic violence, embezzlement, sex and drug trafficking. So, perhaps we should hastily generalise and say we need to put a stop to the brutality and aggression of men?
Yes goodluck doing that. It's the state of nature. We can contain evil, but never eliminate it.
Quoting unenlightened
Well yes, they are. Who's buying all those weapons and how are they using them? We're producing them because people are sending their dough over to us and making the cash registers ring ding ding ding! Weapons aren't necessarily evil - I mean weapons exist - just like martial arts - for self-defence and protection. Some people misuse them. Those who misuse them are evil, not those who produce them...
I really don't get this alliance between the Left and Radical Islamic Terrorism...
There is no alliance between the left and radical Islamic terrorism.
Yes there is. We have many people on the Left who openly complain about the actions of the West against Radical Islamic Terrorism, and the measures that are taken to curb it. Look at that:
Quoting unenlightened
So what's this to say? We should stop bombing them, and let them destroy us right? Somehow us bombing terrorists is equivalent to terrorists murdering innocent civilians right? This is absolutely insane.
Right: and there's no difference between intentionally targeting civilians in indiscriminate bombings and bombing military targets, correct?
Sure. And Muslim-majority countries export oil and heroin. Yippee.
I agree that Muslim-majority countries are too culturally primitive to handle having weapons sold to them. Let them just throw rocks. It works for the Palestinians.
Already covered this. Men are absolutely more violent than women, and people are justified in being more afraid of men than they are women.
Oh, ok. And what was the solution to this?
Quoting Arkady
Ah, because one with weapons is culturally 'superior'?
Yeah, right. Like it's not the pushers and drugs cartels that's the problem, it's the silly users. It's not as if we've been drawing arbitrary borders, installing puppet dictators, arming all sides and sending expeditionary forces to get things started for the last century or so. It's not as if we profit from the chaos and misery, apart from the arms industry itself and the cheap oil, that is.
Quoting Agustino
But not Christians. Not atheists. Not us. We just profit from other people's failings.
Quoting Agustino
It's to say we should stop arming them. A few desperate violently suicidal idiots are not going to destroy Western 'civilisation'. But Yes, we should stop bombing them, because they are not the ones attacking us. As the article above indicates, the ones attacking us are the ones we sent to attack them.
Fer fucks sake, when people hate you enough to kill themselves in the effort to make you suffer just a wee tiny bit, it is surely be worth wondering whether it might be anything to do with something you did or are still doing to them?
Quoting Arkady
But we do it anyway, because we don't give a fuck.
There is lot of sympathy on the Left for radical Islam. Not everyone is so open as Eric Lifeson on Twitter though. The self-described egalitarian and feminist said...
[quote=Eric Lifeson]Any white people that died in London tonight deserved it. They keep spewing they're filthy nationalistic bullshit.[/quote]
https://twitter.com/NorthCrane/status/871508066323374089
Other than that tweet, which most Leftists would probably either condemn or not be honest enough to say openly, his tweets are completely typical of the trendy Left, whose primary reaction to these events is to seek to protect Islam from criticism, and to worry about "Islamophobia", and to complain about white people and the West.
And in the UK over the past ten years or so, the SWP, Respect, the NUS and other Leftists have shared platforms and formed tactical alliances with Islamists.
It is a hot morning with a low of *80 at 4am, the windows are shuttered tight and we haven't seen rain in months. Living in Hell does have it's benefits, such as no mosquitos, no lawn to mow, just acre after acre of parched earth. Yesterday's high was *110 and the Cowboy's spit dried up before it hit the ground.
True story.
I find it almost incredible that intelligent people are still coming out with this stuff.
Rates of various sorts of violence (from interstate to interpersonal) have been declining for myriad reasons (some of which may be poorly understood), so, whatever we're doing, it appears to be having at least some effect. When it comes to nations, arms control treaties, free trade and the like may be the solution (what's the old adage which says that when goods don't cross borders armies will)?
Never said that.
It's not us bombing terrorists that's the problem (except to the extent that it provokes them to attack us in retaliation). It's us bombing innocent civilians. Like the 200 who were killed in Mosul. That number increases to 484 when we include other strikes in Syria, with an estimated 3,800 in total since 2014. It's monstrous.
We should apparently stop selling them vans, too, since they will use them to ram pedestrians.
Do you not see a difference between intentionally killing as many civilians as possible and striving to minimize civilian collateral damage when bombing terrorists?
Of course. But that doesn't make 3,800 civilian deaths somehow acceptable. Just because one thing is worse than another doesn't mean that only the worse thing should be condemned.
So, you are saying that the problem of violence caused by men is on the decline because we can rationally attempt to apply solutions to what is often poorly understood reasons and thus ultimately effect some change?
It reflects upon the moral character and the type of people we're dealing with when one group strives to minimize innocent victims, and the other strives to maximize them. If the London terrorists had had cruise missiles, they would have gladly launched them into the middle of the most crowded part of London.
I'm saying that there has been change. I'm not suggesting that violence is something that we can tweak at will with a dial, in the manner of a TV volume. Progress has been slow, halting, painful, and sometimes reversing itself, but there has been a downward trend in violence.
And that's still not the point. The point is that our actions have led to the death of 3,800 civilians, which is a terrible thing. Turning around and pointing out that there are worse people and worse things in the world doesn't excuse this.
:-O
Unless you are willing to examine the issue of intent then there's nothing more to say. If you wish to draw a moral equivalency between two groups because both of them have killed some innocent civilians without looking at the intent underlying their actions, the respective rules of engagement they employ, etc, then you are simply engaging in sophistry in an attempt to draw a false moral equivalency IMO.
I would say most would condemn. But, of course, there are terrible people like Eric Lifeson on both sides of the politic spectrum, but to then use that to tar one or the other side with the same brush is as foolish as using radical Islamic terrorism to justify discrimination and bigotry against Muslims in general, or using racist Brexiters to justify an accusation that those who campaigned to leave the EU are racists.
Sure. And when a husband beats his wife, she should really examine what she did to deserve that. After all, men don't just beat women for no reason, do they?
But the thinking that leads some to deliberately kill innocent people having fun is the same thinking that leads some to throw gay people from the tops of buildings or to massacre people and enslave young girls who belong to the wrong sect. It seems so obviously false to me to pin this on Western military actions in the Middle East, that it looks like a weird delusion, or a refusal to face the facts. The jihadists are morally unhinged and nihilistic. They are not anti-imperialists.
"Most of jihadism’s victims are other Muslims, in the Arab world or in Africa. When they murder and maim Shia Muslims by the hundreds, they’re not doing that to punish western foreign policy. When Isis set about the massacre of Yazidi men and the enslavement and mass rape of Yazidi women and girls, it wasn’t revenge for western meddling in the Middle East. It takes an oddly Eurocentric view of the world to decide that this is a phenomenon entirely of the west’s creation."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/26/delusion-terror-attacks-just-about-foreign-policy
We've been doing far worse to the poor Africans historically. Why aren't they all up in arms and sending mugged faced terrorists over to bomb us? Historically, Africa has been the continent that has been most pillaged of resources and people by the West - not the Middle East. Of course we should never have invaded - but if we didn't, we would never have produced the technologically advanced society of today. The industrial revolution was made possible by the vast amount of resources extracted by the likes of the British Empire from the whole of the world. Morally speaking it's despicable, but what can be done now? Destroy our civilisation out of disagreement with what our forefathers decided to do?
Quoting unenlightened
No, we don't misuse them to the extent the barbaric radical Islamic terrorists do. We don't purposefully aim to kill innocent people for the sake of it. We target locations either because (1) there were resources there (in the past), or (2) a dangerous group of terrorists is found there. There's no comparison there. A comparison would have been possible if they were targeting our politicians, but they're not. They're targeting innocent people who have nothing to do with what happened to them or their countries.
Quoting unenlightened
And how will we do this? They will buy weapons indirectly via proxies - they don't have to buy weapons directly from us.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, it does make you wonder. But when you look at the situation, you see that the reason why they are so violent and rapacious is that they have an underlying barbaric ideology that motivates them to commit acts of terror. Again - why aren't Africans doing the same? Why aren't the Indians doing the same? They were also very badly affected - in fact much worse - because of the West in the past.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. I'm simply condemning the fact that we've killed thousands of innocent civilians.
I'm not arguing for a moral equivalency. I'm not saying that they're equally bad. I'm saying that they're both bad, and that it's wrong to excuse the lesser wrong simply because there's a greater wrong.
You can see how there will never be an end to this vicious circle, can't you? Take out the labels that make it sound like one of us is "right" and one of "them" is wrong and you will see, it is simply man killing man, nothing more.
To call it "insane" is not as accurate as calling it absurd.
But it's not straw-manning to say that these Leftist--I would say mainstream--sympathies, while they vary in degree, share a similar attitude that may be making the problem worse. The Leftist rhetoric seeks to protect Islam like no other religion, and has, I believe, encouraged a victim mentality among some Muslims that makes them susceptible to extremism.
Once again I have to point out--because even here, on a philosophy forum FFS, the level of knowledge and thought on this issue is pathetic--that my position is one that supports ordinary Muslims. It is based on the presumption that not all Muslims are Islamists or potential terrorists, that criticizing Islamist extremism is not an attack on Muslims or Islam in general. If we bend over backwards to make excuses for the terrorists, viz., terrorism is a reaction to Western misdeeds that is only to be expected, then we are refusing an understanding of what is really going on, and making it more difficult for moderate Muslims to criticize extremists.
I agree with this.
jamalrob, we as Americans do not have clean hands in creation of this war.
Well, I may have misread you. When you said "It's not us bombing terrorists that's the problem", by "the problem" I took you to mean what is causing these terrorist atrocities to happen.
Amen
Damn, that keeps happening.
Really? When was the last time I agreed with you? >:O
Ok, so now, comparatively speaking, let us look at this abovementioned problem with the following statement:
Quoting Arkady
The phenomenon of violent radicalisation particularly amongst Muslims and the catalyst that triggers terrorism may outweigh other religions, but as we cannot generalise that all men are violent, we cannot generalise Islam. The process of understanding the mechanics of ideological behaviour is much more complex and the anger and frustration that stems from such attacks like that in London makes one resort to simplifying jihadist channels into a complex whole.
The violence in the Middle East, for instance, is a series of proxy wars between the superpowers where innocent civilians are being massacred and their lives uprooted - 5 million refugees with 6 million internally displaced and this is just Syria alone - and you cannot expect that somehow - just as you have experienced anger against these terrorists and consequently generalised - that they too are not eligible to behave the same, irrational, way. Of the 6.3 million IDP in Syria, 50% are children, growing up in war, poverty, violence and encountering advocates of armed resistance by oppressive neo-Salafi groups that inspire a wahabi ideology as a tool to justify an authority and that accompanies radicalisation which reinforces a significance for their existence.
Your statement is merely clarity of your state of mind, which is lacklustre at best.
I've done my best to forget the incident.
>:O >:O >:O
Quoting jamalrob
I am old enough to remember when it was the Catholics bombing London and Manchester. I remember saying then, that when an elected MP starves himself to death in prison, it is an indication that something is wrong with the society he is protesting against from the point of view at least of the section that elected him. And the incredulity was the same.
It is as if any attempt to see the other side's motivation is a betrayal and support for atrocity. It isn't, it is the intelligent analysis of the situation, and the first step to a resolution.
No, sorry, it was a response to Agustino asking why the left has a problem with us bombing terrorists. For the most part (I think), it's not bombing terrorists that the left has a problem with, but (as collateral damage) bombing civilians.
Although, there are people like Corbyn who (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) say that the terrorists are attacking us because of our military activity in their countries (but, of course, this doesn't explain why they attack people in their countries).
I think that's explained in the same way that leftist rhetoric seeks to protect women more so than men, blacks more so than whites, and homosexuals more so that heterosexuals; because these are the groups that are the subject of the most discrimination and bigotry.
Lyle DeMoss is the one who 'mentioned' us and left this review "...just back from Life College speaking at SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE put on by the Georgia Chiropractic Council...big thanks to Awais Butt, Cathy Wendland-Colby, Norman Colby, Brian Lieberman and everyone for the support and Southern hospitality...back in the trench tomorrow morning to see peeps, then an afternoon flight to Seatlle Washington to pump up Dr Randy Baze's PHILOSOPHY FORUM...WE hope some of you Washington DCs and CAs come out tomorrow night to celebrate chiropracTIC....
...here is a link to register>>>>http://chirophilosophyforum.com/
NO REST FOR THE WICKED!!!
I agree that it's important to try to understand the motivation of terrorists, but you are attempting to fit their actions into a template which I believe doesn't fit at all. You are treating the actions as political, as rational (not to say correct or good) actions aimed at forcing change, as it was with the IRA. But if, in fact, the terrorists are not motivated by these concerns but solely by a morally rootless will towards apocalypse whose victims need not be white, Christian, or Western, or otherwise recognisably representing the intrerests of Western foreign policy, and if there are ideas that encourage this "jihadi state of mind" which now have currency in the world--then I say that your attempt at understanding is counterproductive, to say the least.
I get the phrase "jihadi state of mind" from Kenan Malik, who wrote an interesting article about it after the Manchester bombing.
[quote=Malik]We need not just confront jihadism in the narrow sense of preventing acts of terror, but also tackle in a broader fashion the jihadi state of mind. Its causes are deep and complex. The moral firewalls against inhuman behavior have weakened. The influence of civil society institutions that help create social bonds, from churches to labor unions, has eroded. So has that of the progressive movements that used to give social grievance a political form.
Cracks now exist in which are spawned angry individuals, inhabiting a space beyond normal moral boundaries. There, they may find in Islamism or white nationalism the salve for their demons and a warped vindication for their actions.
The challenge we face is to rebuild the organizations of civil society and movements for social change that can not only pierce the jihadi state of mind but also channel the grief and love and anger about terrorism into political hope.[/quote]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/opinion/the-jihadi-state-of-mind.html
I see this as an honest attempt at understanding a new phenomenon on its own terms.
Do you, then, think it's justified to protect a religion from criticism?
Yup. And read The House of Wisdom by Jim Al-Khalili for a litany of the intellectual accomplishments which once permeated the Arab world while the Western World languished in medieval barbarity. How things have changed.
If a culture has to reach back that far to demonstrate how accomplished it is, that is truly sad. It is like Republicans claiming that they are "the party of Lincoln."
Your theory might hold more water if Muslim terrorists didn't primarily kill other Muslims. The attacks in the West get more attention, but ISIS attacks in Muslim-majority countries are more deadly. It is also impotent to explain their brutal treatment of groups such as the Yazidis (should the Yazidis have done some introspection to see what they did to deserve said treatment?).
Cool.
I do think that Western military action--which I was against--opened up space for the growth of ISIS, but the knee-jerk explanation of Islamist terrorism in terms of anti-imperialist politics is saying something else entirely.
I think it's fine to criticise a religion (in the sense of criticizing its religious texts). I just don't think it's fine to discriminate against and be bigoted towards people of that religion simply because it's their religion – although it's fine to condemn them for their actions.
I probably criticize Christianity a lot, but very rarely Christians (except when they're actively homophobic and the like, but in those cases it's the homophobia that's the problem, not being a Christian).
I largely agree with this, and when you include the likes of Damon Smith and Dylann Roof in the picture, the whole 'Islamic extremism' thing starts to look inadequate as a way of understanding. It looks more like a violent nihilism that appropriates whatever cultural baggage is around.
"The challenge we face is to rebuild the organizations of civil society..." Well the first challenge is to notice that they are broken, and that the anti-civil, anti-social, inhuman behaviour of these people has some connection with the civil society that these pages so determinedly seek to exclude entirely from civil, social, humanity.
I see Malik as saying in effect that this is somewhat a psychological matter, and as I have argued at length elsewhere, psychological conditions are reflections in the individual of social conditions. The Victorians had hysteria, and women throwing themselves under horses, we have depression, eating disorders, and suicide bombers.
And they have a religious gloss on what looks to me rather close to the Fascist movements that overwhelmed much of Europe in the 30's. And that indicates how totally different they are, not. What were the causes of that wave of extremism? Are there lessons to learn?
Quoting Arkady
That was me reaching for a handy acknowledgement in our own culture of its roots in primitive foreignness that even you cannot deny, though you make a valiant effort to belittle it.
Imagine that we were able to get our hands on a terrorist who killed people and we try him. Nuremburg is the easiest place to do it. We ask why he did those terrible things and he says he was a soldier for Islam. He was just doing what he was told.
Nope. Blaming an abstraction won't do. That relieves the murderer of responsibility. Can't blame Islam.
Sorry Un, the numbering system we use is actually Indian, not Arabian. Algebra, though... you can use that.
Yes, but alongside this deeper, or more general kind of analysis, people gotta fight for what's right locally, and that means addressing actually existing ideas, such as white supremacism or Islamic extremism, whatever it may be. The ideas don't get off the hook because we recognize we've lost "the organizations of civil society" and "progressive movements". In fact, I would say it's partly by confronting the ideas that we might be able to salvage or rebuild these organizations and movements. But that is not possible in a culture that makes it uncomfortable to speak your mind about things.
May say more later.
Indeed, but we got them from the Arabs. But algebra too, why not. They shouldn't have trusted us primitives with such things, they've only themselves to blame.
Once again on this one, here's a link to a report on the alliance of the Left and Islamism, published by an anti-Islamist Leftist group back in 2013:
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/SidingWithOpressor_Web.pdf
One response might be to say that sympathy for Islamism is not the same as an alliance with Islamic terrorism. This is true as far as it goes, but the Islamist and extremely conservative ideas that these pro-Islamist Leftists indulge are the very ones that have been made real in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, and in ISIS-controlled territory, and which have motivated Islamic terrorists.
Another response is that it's just a bunch of Trots and loony lefties who don't have much influence outside their own very small circles, but it seems to me that these sympathies have spread beyond the far left into the liberal left mainstream.
True, true. I don't really like Islam either. Why should I?
Will do. Pick a date.
Oh sorry, I see that Thorongil already agreed to nail you up. Well, just in case you don't stay dead, I'm available to re-crucify you at your earliest possible convenience.
Cos...cos...Islamophobia!
A batch of churches in Minneapolis have put up signs on their lawn wishing for a merry ramadan or something. I don't really know what the point of this is--beyond being one of those limp-wristed liberal maneuvers. They don't wish Jews a merry passover or pagans a witchy Walpurgisnacht. I'm all for bonfires and orgies.
Workers Party, who are far-left Trotskyists. I don't think it reasonable to treat that as indicative of the Left in general. That would be like thinking fascist groups are indicative of the Right in general.
Incidentally, it may have been partly that issue that led to the SWP falling apart, alongside the rape allegations. I know a lot of Trotskyist or former Trotskyist leftists who were aghast at the SWP's pro-Islamism.
When will we get over the idea that bombs have the accuracy of ace snipers? Bombs are useful weapons for killing people but they lack finesse, of necessity. Drop a bomb on a building in which there are 10 enemy operators and 15 non-combatants, and there is a good chance of not getting rid of all 10 enemies and killing off some of the non-combatants.
We either drop bombs or we send in soldiers to pick through the city, room by room, and selectively shoot only those who are certified enemies. We know from past experience that that approach leads to even more dead bodies.
Absolutely. It's unfortunate that this needs to be pointed out. @Arkady - I don't disagree that the issue of intent is relevant to the ethics of all of this, but it's not an ace in the hole that dissolves the moral issue in every case in favour of our conventional military operations. If I drop a bomb on your apartment building intending only to kill a group of terrorists who live there but knowing there is a very high possibility I will also kill your entire innocent family who are unfortunate enough to share the same building, I'd venture you would consider my "intent" a poor excuse for my actions. And rightly so - If we know to a high degree of certainty that we will kill innocent civilians on a military operation, the fact that we didn't intend to becomes less and less relevant in proportion to that degree of certainty. And if we're essentially sure we're going to kill them, it's fatuous to say we didn't intend to. We chose to and must bear responsibility for that. On top of that, conventional military operations generally kill far more innocent civilians than terrorist actions. So, any fair moral comparison of Action A by a terrorist or militant group and Action B by a conventional military force would have to take into consideration far more than mere intent. In other words, it's obvious what the terrorists do is evil because they make no bones about it, but the fact that we do doesn't make us any better in every case.
Instead of putting ourselves in their shoes and worrying about what they must be thinking, let's put ourselves in their shoes putting them in our shoes. I know, pretty complicated empathy, but if we can empathize with them, we can imagine them empathizing for us. That is, if I were them, I'd be thinking that if we keep terrorizing their citizens, they are understandably going to start killing all of us. That's what we're about to do - again.
Uh... can't upload. Oh well.
Intent is relevant, and assuming both sides are sincere in their recitation of their intent, the terrorists intent is to terrorize and the military commanders intent is to quash further terrorism. Morally speaking, those aimed at terrorizing are decidedly worse than those aiming to end further terrorism. I'd go further and blame the terrorists for the predictable outcome of their terrorism, which would include them being sought out and killed and the predictable collateral damage that follows. If I murder my neighbor and flee the police and the officer strikes a pedestrian during the chase, I bear the blame in that as I have set off that predictable chain of events.
I also don't buy into the moral equivalence argument, suggesting that we all have various customs and beliefs, with none being any better or worse, and all should be afforded the same protection. To the extent there is a cultural battle being waged, with the Muslim world wishing to impose its beliefs on the rest of the world, and the Western world wishing to impose its beliefs on the rest of the world, I have no problem supporting and advocating for the Western world to prevail. That is to say, one reason I see the damage to the Muslim world to be of lesser significance than that to the Western world is because the Western world is ideologically and morally superior. If real efforts are not made to eliminate terrorism, which might include the unfortunate large loss of life, then we all stand faced with a far greater tragedy, which would be the loss of our superior way of life and the protection of all the ideals we hold closest.
I reckon you'd feel differently (and so would argue differently) if Israel bombed your neighbourhood, killing your family, with the intent to kill some neo-Nazi terrorist group that organise attacks in Jerusalem.
Yes, I said that:
Quoting Baden
Quoting Hanover
We can assume something like that for the sake of this argument, but in practice there's no compelling reason to think that the military is always going to be honest about their intentions. Also:
Quoting Hanover
You'll need to define what you mean by "terrorism" and "terrorizing" without resorting to irrelevancies like size of army, country of origin etc The aim of conventional military operations is also sometimes to terrorize. The "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad is a case in point. If you simply mean deliberately aiming to kill innocent civilians, we're still not there. Militants who attack Israeli soldiers are labelled terrorists regardless of what group they belong to or whether there's any evidence of them aiming to kill civilians. Conventional armies who target civilians never are. So exactly how do we delineate what terrorizing is and who terrorists are?
Quoting Hanover
So we can be held entirely responsible for consequences we didn't intend then? That sounds like my argument. It's predictable that bombing an apartment block that has civilians in it as well as terrorists will cause civilian casualties, so the army is morally responsible for those casualties even though it didn't intend them. Although you seem to have put the case even more strongly than I (presumably because you think that moral blame can somehow be ring-fenced around those you disapprove of regardless of principle. On reflection I'm sure you'll agree that's not going to fly). Anyway, I would say we don't get absolved of blame from our own actions because others set off a chain of events that put us in the situation we happened to be in. That goes for terrorists, generals and soldiers on the ground.
Quoting Hanover
I'll presume this is just you thinking out loud seeing as I never made this argument.
Quoting Hanover
It sounds like you think the mass slaughter of innocent civilians is necessary and justifiable if it also results in the elimination of terrorism as otherwise our "superior way of life" will disappear? Not sure what "ideals" you uphold but if that is what you mean, there's not much enlightenment thinking there. In fact, there's not much thinking at all there. The idea that our way of life is under threat from terrorists is hyperbole. And a far greater threat to western ideals lies in these kinds of blind rationalizations of violence against innocents.
The typical way we evaluate matters is to find an unbiased, unaffected person to do the evaluating. I think by making me the victim of the attacks, I'd be the least objective person to evaluate the appropriateness of the attack. I will say that if a terrorist group uses innocent victims as shields, it is the terrorist group that is to blame for the ensuing tragedy.
If, though, you are truly a Kantian on this issue, I guess you'd have to allow the terrorists to continue with impunity if the only way to reduce their threat is by injuring innocent parties. You have to accept though that reasonable people do not adhere to such conclusions.
You're not being unbiased when you judge your way of life to be superior to another way of life, or when you consider it acceptable for some far-away civilians to die if it means that your friends and family are safe(r) from terrorism.
I guess that's true, but sometimes terrorists aren't entirely honest in speaking about their intentions. I would assume many terrorists speak of some higher good they're accomplishing, as opposed to actually admitting they just enjoy a good terror spree. That is to say, I expected an objection regarding the sincerity I hypothetically attributed to the terrorists before I received the one you posited regarding the sincerity of the military.
Quoting Baden
Ahh yes, the complicated world of nuance where I can't decipher a moral difference between a man driving a truck into a crowd of average citizens and a targeted military action. I do acknowledge the existence of unjust wars of course, but, even then, I don't confuse unjust wars with terrorist acts. Regardless, I'll concede the general point that we can't always know when a cup is a cup.
At any rate, my statement was that where a military effort is made to eliminate terrorism, that military effort is justified. Quoting BadenYou are responsible for the consequences that foreseeably flow from your intentional conduct. If I set your house on fire intending only to scare you, but instead, I set you also on fire, and you then come out running and jumping like the scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz, I can hardly argue that I just meant to scare you, not actually burn you. Maybe I thought you were smart enough to stop, drop, and roll, but, just like the scarecrow of lore, you didn't have a brain.Quoting BadenIt's obviously not so black and white. Everyone has to be reasonable and has to make real life decisions that have serious consequences. If I can eliminate a terrorist group that has been shown to murder indiscriminately, I should obviously seek to do that. If that means an innocent might die, then I have to weigh that and make a decision. Maybe you would sleep better knowing that no innocent died at your hands today despite hundreds of innocents dying at the hands of the terrorist tomorrow because you failed to take action yesterday. You can see why many wouldn't sleep so well knowing they made the decision you're advocating.Quoting BadenYou do as well, although you just don't want to admit that we're just arguing over acceptable numbers right now. If "mass" slaughter is one innocent life to destroy 100 terrorists who would likely cause additional death, I think you'd be required to agree, right? So, let's just keep playing with the numbers: 5 innocents for 10 terrorists, which will save 100 future deaths by the terrorists? That is to say, we're agreeing in principle. We just need to now arrive at the nauseating calculus we find acceptable.
I knew we'd arrive here sooner or later: Moral relativism. Who am I to say that my way of life is superior to another's. Do we need to now debate the respective merits of British culture versus Saudi Arabian culture, or will all those things I declare abhorrent be dismissed by you on the basis of bias?
I quite agree with Hanover on this point. It's like this. It's not that I'm saying Western culture is superior to other cultures around the world because our women dress as they do instead of wearing burkhas (for example). Indeed, I don't think that's the case - those cultural aspects can be different without a culture being considered superior. But it is true that our culture is superior because we don't tolerate barbaric and inhuman violence, for no purpose at all.
The fact that these people go around - in their own countries - and make hell holes out of them, torturing innocents, killing children, raping young girls, and the worst imaginable abominations - that screams to the very heavens for justice, and if the West has to deliver that justice, then we should smite them off the face of the planet. There's no question here of being biased. I am totally not biased. I'm not complaining about petty cultural differences without a difference (like how their women dress, whether they can marry more than one woman, and so forth). I'm pointing to abominable differences. If there is a culture that encourages the worst crimes possible, then I'm totally not biased when I say we should bomb the fuck out of them.
The truth is we have a divine duty to clear out these monsters off the face of the planet. The problem isn't Islam. It's radical Islamic terrorism - something that many Islamic countries will be more than willing to help us annihilate if we decide to do it with our full force. In fact, if the US, Russia, Turkey and Saudi got in a room, they could sort out a deal to wipe the terrorists off.
I didn't say that morality is relative. I said that you're not unbiased.
What's the difference? Of what value is the objective morality if we're all too biased to see it?
I'm commenting on your earlier retort that "the typical way we evaluate matters is to find an unbiased, unaffected person to do the evaluating" in response to me suggesting that you'd think differently were it your family being killed. The issue is that you're not unbiased when you claim that it's an acceptable loss when it's somebody else's family dying as collateral damage.
To clarify then as to my retort: If dealing with a specific incident of loss, I would not be the proper person to evaluate what ought be done to remedy that loss if I am the one who suffered the loss. For example, if you were charged with stealing my car, you might be upset to learn that I was the judge assigned to consider whether you were the one who stole my car, and you'd be even more upset to learn that I was the one designated to arrive at an appropriate punishment for you if found guilty. Maybe you'd think a different judge might be better suited for the task than me.
This is very different from claiming, which I took you to be claiming, that we are all biased in some way that the concept of accurate judgment is meaningless.
1. Unlike IRA, ETA and other recent terrorist groups, it isn't clear to me what the political solution is. IRA and others stopped because they gained a political voice. We could negotiate with ISIS to some extent as they seem to have a political goal but I don't see any possibility for domestic terrorism.
2. The discussion about whether there's something typical about Islam that makes it more violent or not isn't fruitful. Not only because people assign a different level of causality to the religious angle for terrorists but because you can't fight an idea and killing all Muslims isn't a solution. That said, I'm not sure about the value of raising terrorist's favourite interpretations as being significantly representative of Islam when there are a lot of other interpretations out there.
Would you think that ISIS is sufficiently rational to even be worth negotiating with? I can't but feel that negotiating with terrorists - in essence, giving in to some of the demands they have - is highly immoral. It means that we accept their barbarous way of life, and barbarous ideals as worthy of existing. Effectively we give them legitimacy.
We are all biased, but I'm sure we can make accurate judgements nonetheless. Which is exactly why being the victim of collateral damage doesn't entail that your biased condemnation isn't also correct.
Take for example the common disagreement between poor Democrats and wealthy Republicans. The former are biased in arguing that they have a right to some minimum level of state-provided welfare and the latter are biased in arguing that they have a right to keep a greater percentage of their earnings than the current tax rate allows. Yet one or the other is correct (leaving aside some middle-ground for the sake of argument) despite the bias.
Do you know how IRA and UK negotiated over the years? In secret of course because the delicate sensibilities of most people would mean political suicide. In the end it led to peace.
But yes, I do think they're rational enough but aren't sure we should - I mentioned it as a possibility in principle. My reservations to do so would be with their clear atrocities within their own borders against their own and others. Any agreement would mean condemning a lot of people to this oppression.
You asked that I offer an objective evaluation of the death of my family that resulted from Israel killing terrorists who apparently were using my family as a shield. I would say that it's entirely possible that the Israeli military was justified, and it might very well be that my anger would be entirely at the terrorists that elicited the military attack, but I also think it's somewhat absurd to ask that I be the judge of it. I would think that my concerns would be focused on addressing the devastation that has come to my life. I'd not be in any state to render a meaningful judgment, and I might be overly concerned with things like revenge and hatred to be trusted.
So, yeah, I reckon I'd feel differently if the death was to your family than mine, not that I don't care about the Michael clan, but Michaels are a dime a dozen.
Anyway, I might just put it out there that Chomsky is the leading authority on the matter and can safely be assumed that is genuine and sincere in his analysis and conclusions.
Nothing about "blaming" Islam as a community of practitioners, system of beliefs, or religion absolves the murderer for his own actions. If we say that a white supremacist's killing spree against, say, black churchgoers in South Carolina, was motivated by a particular brand of white nationalist sentiment picked up on a website or elsewhere, we can cite those beliefs as a motivating factor while still holding the killer himself culpable.
I doubt there are many murderers who act without motive of some sort or another. Do you think it's important to consider those motives? For a social engineering project perhaps?
Well Mr. Chomsky is a national treasure imho, as well as a wonderful role model for any activist. And i mean any activist: left, right, center, and everything in between. His quiet demeanor, scholarship, and untiring commitment is an inspiration and a rarity, no matter if one happens to disagree with him. I try not to accept anyone's word unquestioningly, but i trust him more than probably any other public figure. For example, i disagree with him when he says the current GOP is the one organization more dangerous to world stability than the Islamic State. The Democratic party is a close second, followed by the Wall Street bankers who would sell their soul to close a deal. That is, assuming they still have one left to sell.
I have confidence in them, though. They'll be fine.
I mean that the hieroglyphs are taking over. I was wrong all along, looks like AI is just around the corner.
I dunno. You ever fast? starving rats some increased their life expectancy by a third. Sometimes it feels good to not be so full of shit, lol.
That's my favorite thing to disprove.
This is refreshing to see, like drinking a bottle of water while on a vision quest in the desert.
Hint; think bout the audience he appeals to...
Just so you know, I said that fasting thing to like six people today, and it wasn't in any way meant as an aside or anything. I was serious, lol.
To expand. we all know what abstracting is, it's taking a bunch of information and summarizing it, and then summarizing the summary ad infinitum.
Yay neuroticism. Not as fun of a companion.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but note that on this issue I also disagree with our lone conservative mod (Hanover). I think both conservatives and leftists mostly adhere to an us-and-them narrative that doesn't make any sense to me. For one side, Muslims are the enemy of the West, and for the other, Muslims are oppressed by the West.
Quoting Thorongil
Cultural appropriation!
If born-men can identify as women then why can't born-English identify as native American?
Queue a variation of the Life of Brian speech. ;)
As it happens I think some feminists have accused Caitlyn Jenner of gender appropriation.
EDIT: Also I just realized I'm guilty of assuming that Thorongil is not Native American. What does that say about me?
Everything. Tut tut.
Here are some nails and a cross. People have to crucify themselves nowadays. You know, not being a drag and all the jazz about self reliance?
Talk about it then! Sheesh.
I don't think he'd put it quite so simply. I was watching him talk about this just the other day, and he was very careful with his wording.
Well, what's there to say? It just seems to me that conservatives live in a different sort of world or rather world-view. It's hard to explain adequately without some knowledge about human biology and such.
I'm just honestly tired of bashing conservatives as such and such based on ignorance or of being uneducated. Maybe I'm just presenting my own prejudice about who or what constitutes a conservative since they seem to be just as able and more willing to participate in society and see how things unfold.
About conservativism. What do you think about it?
Yes, I do have something to say and I can be concise about it if understanding me is an issue.
More conservatives dislike Muslims and Islam than do liberals.
That this should be the main point is because the US is much more conservative than the rest of the civilized world, except a certain few countries, and has a disproportionate amount if involvement in the Middle East than do other countries.
Why is that?
If conservativism is an issue here then one can use 'American conservativism' if need be.
It's a very interesting read really. One thing the book makes very clear is the liberal misunderstanding of the conservative position. I forget the actual stat, but when liberals were asked to answer questions as a conservative would, they were correct around 25% of the time, but conservatives could respond accurately as liberals close to 100% of the time. The reason given is that conservatives rely upon (again, I'm going off recollection from a while ago when I read it) something like 6 different principles when arriving at a conclusion, but liberals rely upon something like 2. The conservative view is actually very nuanced, and I think that liberals are just too quick to reject it as being the result of lack of education or intellect.
As an example, liberals decry the conservative lack of compassion, caring nothing for the poor or less fortunate, yet conservatives give charity and volunteer at rates that far exceed liberals (The book Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks (Warning: a conservative) makes that clear). It's the conservatives lack of reliance on government that separates them from the liberal when it comes to helping the less fortunate, not their lack of compassion.
And so to the conservative a liberal appears like an irrational, emotional creature, refusing entirely to understand the simplest distinctions, but instead just smugly moralizing about contemporary values, while admittedly having no way to ground those morals into anything absolute. As an example, I think liberals have a real problem with declaring Western superiority and the superiority of the Judeo-Christian values it was founded upon. In fact, that last sentence will stand out to some as incredibly offensive and small minded (and Baden will think it's trolling because he refuses to believe I believe half of what I say). When you don't live a relativistic world, things are much more clear, and hearing someone speak with such clarity and certainty comes across to the relativist as brash, obnoxious, uneducated, mean, and intentionally provocative, when the conservative thinks he's just calling a spade a spade.
Yes, and liberals side with Muslims because they see them as an oppressed party, and their mindset is to come to the aid of the underdog.
Chomsky is still popular with college students. Bernie Sanders kind of tapped into that "wise grandfather" vibe, too. Although his being a politician running for president, i was a little doubtful how sincere he was. Or least, how practical and realistic his plans were. After being let down (predictably) by Obama, and all his Hope/Change marketing bs, skepticism turned into cynicism. Politicians running for office have all the believability of a horny teenage guy in a backseat of a car, telling a girl "I will love you forever!" O:)
It may be true though ;)
American involvement in the Middle East is explainable not only in terms of its ideological differences with other Western nations, but more so in terms of its political standing in the world. That is, the US doesn't just want to involve itself in these wars, but it also feels it has the duty to and it also has the ability to. That fact that it has sufficient resources and the ability to enter these wars separates it from many of the other European nations who jeer from the sidelines.
Well, you do say things like "I bathe daily in the Nile, defacating, scrubbing, washing my clothes and dishes, all in one sitting. Cleanses my mind, body, and spirit."
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/63571
And 2.7% of the time it absolutely is! X-)
Anyway, I'm a long way from being a liberal in the American Democrat or Guardianista sense.
Right, so if you disbelieve, and it happens to be one of the 2.7% times, then you've made a mistake ;)
Yes, as it happens I said something similar on the last page:
Quoting jamalrob
That's not trolling. That's just something I do when visiting the Nile.
Egypt is 88% Muslim. You'd never visit.
Although I guess you might go to Burundi...
True. Politician is a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
I enter the Nile in Uganda, which is 85% Christian. They also have really good locker rooms where you can keep your shit while you're wading around petting the hippos. And no, I'm not talking about your mom, but an actual hippo. This is the Shoutbox, I can say whatever I want.
I don't have a mom.
I have a mum.
Yeah, well I don't have a mom either because she died a long time ago. Unbelievable that you'd bring that up. You sunk this to a whole new level.
Dayummmm dawg >:O
You believe it. You just don't understand it. I'm not a relativist by the way (and I don't know who the relativist bogeyman you keep referencing is either) - I believe enlightenment values are superior to anything else heretofore posited in terms of forming the basis of a culture. And one of those enlightenment values is the ability to separate yourself from your "team" and take a cool and dispassionate ethical look at your own actions as well as those of others. That's something you seem not only absolutely unable to do but actually proud of being unable to do. You can pat yourself on the head and say that's just calling a spade a spade but your basic attitude on this crucial point makes you as primitive as your enemies.
Really? It just seems like life is too short to screw around with Facebook.
Sounds like Etsy wants you to market those products.
"This is the Shoutbox, I can say whatever I want."
No you can't. Just ask Emptyheady, he said whatever he wanted in Shoutbox, and Baden banned him (N)
That you can say whatever you want is not that you will never be punished for what you say.
But as I recall, he was intent on explaining that he'd rather be in Nazi Germany than in the UK.. so maybe he created a time machine.
Oh come off it already. Your bitching about the injustice on this Board is your least endearing trait.
Salty.
I declare myself enlightened, ethical, dispassionate, and whatever medals you pin on yourself. That was a really good exercise in self congratulations.
Anyway, I'm not as primitive as my enemies. My enemies kill people in the name of religion.
Ah, thank you for the glitter of good cheer, good sir. (Y)
You missed the point there. Purposely probably. But don't worry I'm not going to accuse of trolling, I know you know I know you know what I meant.
The trench warfare between the "Right" and "Left" is generating much more heat than light, and more casualties than progress. Sports, Politics, and War. Survival of the fittest! Are you for the blue team or the red one? Rah! Rah! Rah! The merry-go-round is a fun ride... if you are not expecting to do more than go around in circles. The politicians (and the rest of the status quo) keep us divided and conquered. The guiding principle seems to be something along the lines of "if something is important, it worth fighting for" and "desperate times call for desperate measures". But the liberal has much more in common with his/her conservative next door neighbor than with some billionaire leader. (btw, when/how did Donald Trump ever become of voice of the common man? I can't help but picture an episode of The Simpsons in which a politically campaigning Mr. Burns dines with Homer and family, bearly masking his contempt. Not saying Lady HRC Macbeth would have been much different :-O ). It could make one wonder if political party affiliation and/or identification with an ideological "side" is contrary to the Philosophical ideal, as exemplified by Socrates and others. To identify with an ideology risks turning a blind eye to the inevitable contradictions and shortcomings every ideology has. The symbolic bird of philosophical pursuits is not the ostrich, but the owl. And one cannot afford blindness in dark and confusing times.
Yes, saw that! Very encouraging and somewhat surprising to me. But then again i am no expert on Muslims. Though the moderate Muslim must feel like they are getting heat from every side, one could imagine.
It's true. The tone of his voice doesn't reveal the depths of emotion implied by his words.
Morons?
Who'd have thought that Trump and Chomsky appeal to the same people?
You're letting your feelings about his politics interfere with an intellectual assessment. Your brain needn't be dragged around by your nads.
"Loathsome" is quite a strong word, meaning vile and reprehensible, as you surely know. All humans are fallible and prone to mistakes. Would you care to elaborate or requalify your comment? Not sure what you are referring, in general. Thanks!
Meanwhile there's cool stuff to think about. Philosophy of mind, maybe.
https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Chomsky-Reader-Peter-Collier/dp/189355497X
Ok. Thanks for the reading material. Always good to get another point of view.
But while I'm busy reading that, would you care to provide an particular example of Chomsky's words that YOU find loathsome? Or if you submitted an article to that book, let us know! Don't be modest! ;)
Chom who? :s
Some guy who published some theories about linguistics. Can anyone tell me why I should give a damn about him? Not like there's much use in quibbling with words - sounds to me like another white hat academic who has no clue of anything else. Not to mention that it sounds like he just translated Kant from metaphysics into biology - yeah, Hume was wrong, the mind ain't a tabula rasa - big deal.
Thank you for your reply. I would be interested to read what you thought to be his weakest point, or somewhere you think he crossed the line of decency or factuality. I am no Chomsky expert. And i am an apologist for no one, except myself. Ask my wife- I'm apologizing all day long! :D
And one of the most cited scholars in history.
Ok, thanks. Fair enough. Perhaps he has made a second career out of pointing out that the Emperor's fly is open. And if the entire empire is without clothing, it just might be because wages are too low and taxes are too high.
I think you have to look at his history to get why there's no point in trying to preach to him. He remembers WW2. He saw the whole Cold War. He was shaped by a period of time during which there was pessimism about there being any future at all for humanity.
If I had a chance to chat with him, I wouldn't say anything. I'd just listen.
(Y)
That means jack shit to me. He published useless things as far as I'm concerned. Chomsky compared to Plato, Aristotle, etc. GIVE ME A BREAK!
Quoting Sapientia
Yes I know, it's one of the initial ideas of the British Empiricists. But Hume is the best known, hence why I cited him.
Quoting Thorongil
I've heard his name that's for sure, but I listened to a few videos and found that the guy has nothing interesting to say. He's a specialist in a boring niche that is of no interest to anyone except specialists. Like many PhD students today. Their areas of focus are so specific and detailed that they don't interest anyone except other specialists.
Chomsky does have some common liberal-leftist memes that he spews, but other than being a mouthpiece for the status quo, I don't see much else.
Well, i'm more familiar with and interested in his political, rather than scholarly, writing. Big words frighten and confuse me. But Mr. Chomsky is still working away, nearing 90 years old. We should be so lucky. Check out any of his recent interviews, or his past essays or lectures. I would not expect you to be a fan necessarily, since he is on the far left by his own admission. But i'd be curious to hear your response to his work.
£100,000. :D
You set the bar too low. Doesn't even count as being wealthy.
£100,001? And a packet of Fruit Pastilles!
Something new...
And something from the vault. I can't watch this without giggling at the mannerisms of W. F. Buckley Jr.
I was responding to the intense conversations others were having about him. I wouldn't even bother mentioning him otherwise.
Quoting jamalrob
I don't care if you give a fuck, I just stated my views. You know, sharing what we believe is part of being human. But clearly you bothered to respond, so you do give a fuck.
Quoting jamalrob
I know that already! ;)
Ok I will tell you how to get them then. But I don't think you'll be willing to follow through :P
It's not impossible to look like Arnold Schwarzenneger either - but most people aren't willing to do what it takes.
Done! Okay before anyone starts complaining how did you watch a 21 min video in 10mins and other nonsense - MAGIC! I watch at 2x the speed.
Okay so:
Republican Party Is the Most Dangerous Organisation in History
He repeated this exact statement word for word quite a few times. It's actually starting to sound true with all that repetition. But let's be serious.
• Republican Party isn't unified under Trump - there's a lot of anti-Trump movements within RP
• We are not sure if we are headed towards an environmental catastrophy at all. The Earth has many self-regulating mechanisms, many that we probably don't know about. For example, there was a time when the whole planet froze. Scientists were scratching their heads how it could ever unfreeze. The answer was that the volcanoes released greenhouse gas that became trapped, and slowly warmed the planet back again. (read about this and similar things:
• Environmental fears are overblown. I agree we ought to be careful and prudent - but unlikely that we'll fuck up the Earth.
Nuclear Threat and Minute Hand to Midnight
Even if we started dropping a few nuclear bombs, we would not destroy the Earth.
The Midnight hand is nothing but fear producing sensationalism, which sells. Making people afraid is a good way to get them to listen (and buy the right products).
In reality, we'd have a very hard time destroying the Earth. Our hubris has become so large that we're overestimating human capacities by a long shot.
North Korea
Even NC admits that it's unlikely Trump would attack.
It is insane that he sympathises with one of the most brutal regimes in history.
Overall Comments
White hat talk without much actual practical understanding of affairs. It's typical of intellectuals to overestimate challenges and make a fuss out of ultimately insignificant things. It's a way for them to convince the rest of us that they actually know their shit.
"I won't make those suggestions. That is for [the plural] you to decide." Check in at 1:32:00
That is 1.5 hours in my time ;)
But there is no such evidence of people who have gotten in touch with God, which is on par with claims of getting in touch with Big Foot, unless you just mean something different, quite ordinary and uncontroversial by that.
Check in at 1:32:00
NC means "North Carolina". Maybe you mean "NK". It's not out of the question that Trump would attack North Carolina, but it seems unlikely.
Wawawiwa where the hell did that come from now? :-O That's for a different thread, but fine, I'll bite your bone.
Why do you think so? Religious testimonies ABOUND - just like weight loss stories, stories of making money quickly, building a sexy body that ehm girls like, and so forth. All you have to do is go on youtube and type "Christian testimony". You'll see many people who have seen their lives transformed (or at least claim so - it's up to you to explain why they would make such claims if there was nothing there in the first place).
For example (this was recommended by a Catholic friend - note that I'm not Catholic, and in fact I haven't watched it myself either lol):
I have. I see that he claims they're not merely academic exercises, you're primarily responsible for the consequences of your actions not those of others (which I happen to agree with), etc. But to understand it properly I'll have to listen to the whole thing. That's not a problem, it will get done sometime. It's just 1.5 hours since I listen at 2x speed, and I'll multitask it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I meant NC = Noam Chomsky. Not NK, because then my sentence wouldn't make much sense.
Interesting. Back in the 1970s 3M came out with a "speech compressor". It didn't play the tapes at twice the speed, it chopped out micro-seconds bits so that one could hear a lecture in say 1/3 less time at a normal pitch. Much more than that and the sound quality started to degrade. We used it for review courses in CPA and Bar Exams. At the time, it was a novel advance. The technology to concurrently speed up sound (let alone video) and keep the pitch normal either didn't exist yet or it was way, way too expensive for a library product.
Occasionally one still hears recorded messages compressed with this technology--like when they give you the fine print in audio.
It does seem reasonable that we get our own house in order before going out and invading others. Until we're able to reunite North and South Carolina, I don't think we need to be trying to reunite North and South Korea.
I do wonder, though, if we should create a demilitarized zone between north South Carolina and south North Carolina and whether it should extend fully east to west along north South Carolina and east to west south North Carolina. What's interesting is that part of North Carolina is south of South Carolina, meaning you'd have to travel north in south North Carolina to reach north South Carolina. All of this north south east west confusion would be eliminated, of course, if we reunited North and South Carolina into a single state that I would suggest be simply called South Carolina, retaining the character of that state, as it was, after Delaware, the first in freedom, if one considers secession an emancipatory act, as, to be sure, emancipation is an ironic term, to say the least, of South Carolina's intentions..
Well yeah it's something that I just found out that I have to do. There's just too much to do, so keeping up with everything requires speed. My work also involves accessing a lot of online material when needed (when there's something new, or I need to check a client's competition - or when I'm just expanding my knowledge) so I have to wizz through things pretty fast. There's just too much information to keep up with otherwise. This 2x speed has been a life saver for me. It takes a bit of getting used to in the beginning (sound is indeed a bit worse), but it's highly needed.
I think actually many people aren't aware of this possibility of speeding things up actually. It's actually helped me absorb philosophical content much faster too - those books that you can get audio on, I always bump it up in speed now. Oh and recently I've listened to a few Joel Osteen sermons at 2x the speed while working >:O not bad. They'd be unbearable at this point to me at normal speed, but at 2x speed it was enough to give me a quick idea about the guy.
It's one of the things that I hate ultimately but - I find out I'm multitasking everything these days, even eating... Our society is too fast and speedy, but there's nothing I can do about it.
RAID is from SC Johnson -- A Family Company
Bullshit >:O
This advertising shit is bullshit, but somehow it works. I don't understand why. But it does. I've seen it work.
Evol si natas.
Are you in the film, BC?
No, I just told Chomsky what to say.
Not entirely true. I understand that one of Mozart's patrons told him that Mass shouldn't take longer than 45 minutes, so Wolfgang wrote one to order.
LOL - sure but you have to admit that there's a lot more - and I really mean a lot more - to get done in a day to survive today than 100 years ago.
North Carolina's defense minister wants to talk to you. They're sending a helicopter.
And how many testimonies of ghosts and fairies and Big Foot and extraterrestrials and the Lock Ness Monster and lizard people and the illuminati and magic and so on and so forth have there been? I guess they're all true as well then.
I can assure you that not as many as there have been religious testimonies. Religion is a core part of humanity, and has been so since the beginning. Lock Ness Monster, lizard people, etc. these are just local phenomena.
Well it's a fact that religious phenomena are part of being human, ever since humans have been on Earth. The Lochness monster suffers no comparison. So you have to explain why religion has been such a central part of life since the very beginning - why people have felt the need for it, why were they religious in the first place?
Well, let's go back another 25 years...
Bullshit. You don't have to feed and brush the horses, refill their water trough, and shovel shit out the door. You don't have to take a relatively slow street car into work (or worse, ride a horse). You don't have to wear a suit in a dimly lit, hot, un-air conditioned office with windows open and no screens. You don't have to wait for a call while the operator puts it through. You don't have to send faxes because you have to write out the document, put it into an envelope, address it, find a delivery boy out front, pay him, and hope he doesn't die on the way to the delivery address. You don't have to take a horse-drawn cab across town to see somebody. If you want to travel, you don't have to take a boat which might ram an iceberg and sink. Trains took 3 or 4 days to get from New York to San Francisco. If you got sick you probably would die (leaving a lot of paper work unprocessed). If you wanted to check the news, you had to actually hold the inky crinkly paper thing in your hands, and read it by dim light. Stock quotes came out of your ticker-tape printer and piled up on the floor. If you wanted to know what SC Johnson was selling for, you had to look through the tape to find it.
Now, in 1917 things had gotten somewhat better, but not immensely so. You might be able to take a subway now. (They were crowded from the first day of operation onward.) Speaking of RAID, there wasn't any. You could sprinkle arsenic powder on the floor and hope that kept the cockroaches and other vermin in check. Probably didn't.
Plus, in 1917 there was a war on in Europe which killed all sorts of people for no good reason.
How do you know that? What do you count as religious phenomena, and what religious phenomena were there around the time of the earliest known humans some 195,000 years ago?
Quoting Agustino
Err, no I don't, because that is irrelevant to truth and falsity, right and wrong. Think about slavery as a counterexample in terms of centrality, longevity, people feeling the need for it, etc. People feel the need for myths, magical explanations, fantasy, tradition, rules, practice, customs, ethics, and so on, for various reasons, social and psychological, but that says nothing about whether or not they are true or right or good.
I'm available. Did you know you could get high huffing the vapor from whipped cream cans? Haven't tried it myself. NOTE: don't inhale the whipped cream.
This seems like complete bullshit. Unless there's more to the First Amendment than the "Congress shall make no law..." part then what are these lawyers thinking? Do you guys just pretend that clients have a case just so that you can make some money, @Hanover?
Clearly, no discussion can be had with that sort of attitude...
And here ladies and gentlemen is the wolf in sheep's clothing. That we assume that we have the right answer and are self-infatuated enough to claim that we know how to provide a solution is ignorance, hypocrisy, and self-grandeur of the highest scale.
Just look at the Middle East for the matter, the most recent example I can provide of the results of having our standards of such high esteem that they need be imposed on others.
I'd argue that American conservativism has a particular issue with the no true Scotsman fallacy, which when applied to situations becomes a pretext for excusing our mistakes in foreign policy. Such behavior is reminiscent of a delusional and insane person (perhaps a pathological gambler?), who is convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong about their own beliefs about the world.
You thought I was a sheep?
You don't huff it like paint fumes, but you actually inhale the nitrous oxide and receive a temporary high, unlike paint fumes that will rot your brain. NO2 is just laughing gas, that's all.
No, I think the current 'conservatives' are wolves in sheep clothing...
I'll let that sink in.
Quoting Question
Pot, meet kettle.
I have yet to see a neocon acting like a conservative.
In saying that neoconservatives are not conservative in policymaking and reduction of the size of government.
How many do you mean by not all?
The difference between good philosophy and bad philosophy. The good requires two, three, or more readings to understand. The bad you can absorb at double speed.
At least the last four administrations, yes, including Obama too, which many regard as a continuation of Bush Jr in foreign policy at least.
I actually might actually try this some time. I'm not actually sure, though. ;)
When you go twice as fast, there's twice as much actuality.