100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > IgorFrankensteen
|
|
|
I think, It depends on how the situation unfolds. I have found out in other cases for other's it's not so easy to do. I have learned that the heart muscle takes longer to heal then all the other muscles in the body. If I am wrong please help me to understand as well. I've been through a lot of personal learning about this. My experience has been that it is less a matter of "hearts being broken and having to heal," than it is that the persons actual vision or understanding of how love (and life) works, can be damaged or changed by bad experiences, such that they can't believe in the same kind of love as they did before. You can't unsee things. You can't un-know things. If your experience is that someone THOUGHT they loved you, and you THOUGHT you loved them, and you broke up when one or both realized you were mistaken, that can leave you fully able to launch right back into the same idea of love as you had before. But if your experience causes you to doubt love itself, the reason you can't "let go of your heart" again, isn't because you are holding it back. It's because you lose the sense that "letting go" is anything other than indulging in self-blinding delusion. Those of us who have suffered that, aren't entirely without hope. But we do have a longer road, and a more complicated search to go on, before we can find someone who we can believe in enough to accept in that way. In a way, it's like the transition to knowing that Santa Claus isn't real. It changes how you feel about Christmas rather dramatically, but it doesn't mean that you lose EVERYTHING nice about it, or that you can't have a good time. It does mean, though, that you can never again feel the way you did when you thought Santa WAS really going to magically bring you things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Liberal or Conservative
|
|
I have completely given up on using the terms "liberal" or "conservative" to refer seriously to anyone. Both have been politicized to the point where they are actually closer to being accusations than labels, in most instances.
I support the dictionaries BASE definition of conservative as a description of certain things, as long as political opinions and viewpoints aren't involved. I am a very conservative PERSON in most ways. Conservative with money, I don't ever drink to excess or consume any intoxicants legal or illegal for the purpose of losing my faculties. I am apparently very old fashioned, but NOT traditional when it comes to male-female relationships, since I am a one-at-a-time person (old-fashioned), but strongly opposed to anyone being treated as an object, a conquest, a possession, or a tool. I support what was once THE core liberal ideal, that all governments should be of the people, and by the people as a whole. I oppose what was once the core ideal of old-style "conservatism," which was royalist, and which idealized a state ruled by an elite. I find that both Communism and Free Market Capitalism are utter nonsense, since both completely ignore human nature and the most historically common way that human beings tend to act. I am aggravated every time someone claims to be promoting or demonstrating their "conservatism" by posting flat out propaganda lies. There is nothing whatsoever CONSERVATIVE about lying, and it's an insult to real conservatives to pretend that there is. Refusing to recognize and address real problems isn't a REAL conservative value, but these days, many people who claim to be Conservatives, insist that it is. I don't support the dictionary description of "liberal" as in “a person who believes that government should be active in supporting social and political change." I don't want my government to CHANGE society, but I do want it to require reality be recognized, AND to enforce the claimed highest ideals of America. For everyone, not just the wealthy or the descendents of the first Western Europeans to invade here. I don't find that enforcing "all men are created equal" to be identical to "government should be active in supporting social and political change." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Lying or running
|
|
When I catch someone in a lie, I know that I can't believe anything that person says. I believe in the truth, even when it has consequences. I was raised that way. By that measure, doesn't that mean that you currently don't trust ANYONE in the federal government, from the President on down? They've all been caught in lies of one degree or another. Most people I've dealt with, even the ones who think they are tough on lies, actually have multiple and often complicated levels and degrees of lying that they make judgments about. Obviously, a small child who lies to avoid punishment for minor infractions (taking an extra cookie) aren't going to be condemned to the same degree as an adult who lies for personal gain. Even when someone is NOT politically biased, they still will accept SOME lies, and reject and punish over others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Measuring the economy
Edited by
IgorFrankensteen
on
Sun 10/07/18 09:39 AM
|
|
The only thing that ever seems to be certain as regards the economy, is that politicians OUT OF POWER will always say either that we are veering towards an economic cliff, or are failing to improve nearly as much as what we should be doing, in all areas. And they will often point to something as being BAD when they are out of power, and then say it's nothing to worry about when they are IN power again.
When the Republicans were OUT OF POWER, they insisted that the growing deficits that our progress away from the hole they'd left us in in 2007 were built on, were horribly bad and dangerous. Now that they are IN power, those same, now much more rapidly increasing deficits are suddenly either WONDERFUL, or to be completely ignored, or even to be praised as a brilliant "strategy." Do I know for sure what the truth is? Of course not. That would require direct and accurate knowledge of the future. One thing I do know well, is that using a personal experience with debt and the lack of it in one's personal life, isn't applicable to a large economy. For example, when you decide to "do without" something in your personal life, it's you both deciding and suffering. But when someone running a large scale economy of a nation decides that "we" have to "do without," it's usually someone OTHER than the people doing the deciding, who end up doing the suffering. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amusing to witness an angry mob forming in order to chant that someone else is an angry mob.
The present day Republican Party was consciously and purposefully built around the idea of gathering an alliance of smaller angry mobs together into one GREAT angry mob. That is why the most common speech to hear from Republicans, isn't about what they POSITIVELY want to do (other than reduce their own taxes), it is almost always about how angry they are at Democrats, and how eager they are to do violence to anyone who opposes them. Even Trump's agenda is all about who he OPPOSES, and not about anyone who he supports. Rather the definition of "angry mob." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Sex or chocolate 😉
|
|
The great advantage of chocolate, is that save for very rare instances, one can indulge in it in public without being arrested.
On the other end of things, having entirely meaningless sex with someone who loves you deeply and thoroughly, and who you in turn love in the same way, is impossible to beat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Lying or running
|
|
As a part of my combined life of studying history (in order to understand how people work), and my work as a problem solver, I came to be suspicious of people who want me to make ASSUMPTIONS about someone else, because they caught that person in a lie.
I ended up directly studying logic itself, as a subset of studying higher mathematics, and as a necessary part of understanding human political and social behavior. In particular, I learned to watch carefully for what EXACTLY is proven when someone does lie, or when they state something as being a fact, which is not a fact (not quite the same as lying...when you think you are saying something factual and you are wrong, you aren't lying). All that a lie proves by itself, is that the person saying it, doesn't want to tell the truth. It does NOT, by itself, prove what the truth actually IS. TAke the recent KAvanaugh mess as an example. It's clear that Kavanaugh told "less than the truth" about his past. However, that lack of factuality doesn't prove that he is guilty of everything that his accusers said about him, it only proves that he doesn't want to be honest about himself and his past. When it comes to running away, it's even more important to be SPECIFIC about what can and can't be deduced from the behavior. All that can be factually deduced when someone runs, is that they want to leave in a hurry. There is no way to know why they want to leave, without further investigation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
8 signs
Edited by
IgorFrankensteen
on
Sat 10/06/18 01:24 PM
|
|
I would talk about this a bit differently. I am wary of declaring that a human being IS a hypocrite, as though it's a condition that they can't escape from.
So instead of saying someone IS a hypocrite, I would say instead, that they are behaving or thinking hypocritically about whatever the issue at hand is. I support this pointing out of defective reasoning, and of the symptoms of deception. I know that a lot of us were actually directly and indirectly taught to BE hypocritical, from the time we were children. It takes actual hard work, to think and behave in a consistently honest and honorable way, especially in a world where there are so many conflicting motivations, all of which are considered to be "positive." Basic example: loyalty to ones friends and relatives is often lauded. Allegiance to your home country and nation likewise. But there are hierarchies of loyalty, and they are not all compatible. This is where a lot of hypocritical behavior comes from: someone choosing loyalty to the wrong one of their influences. Particularly these days, choosing loyalty to ones political party, over loyalty to the entire nation, or to the principles of democracy and justice. Or choosing loyalty to family members and friends, above loyalty to the principle of the rule of law, or to the best interests of ones local neighborhood. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teenagers getting drunk and having sex wouldn't have been at any house. Somebody's parents were out of town or one had sorry parents. Ford should remember whose party because of that. I would believe k did might have done something if she admitted she was blacking out is why she can't remember details. But getting drunk at the party doesn't take her memory of whose party it was and how she got there. She is a liar and doesn't have those key people to be investigated. You are so certain and quick to declare Ford "liar" because she doesn't remember the details that YOU remember from an entirely DISSIMILAR situation of your own, during which you were NOT assaulted. Are you also listening to Kavanaugh's claims? At least as unbelievable (that he "didn't get THAT drunk, THAT often, and was a virgin the entire time, despite claiming AT the time, that he was having lots of sexual experiences). Besides, the problem we are faced with in this is HERE AND NOW. How Kavanaugh responds to THE HERE AND NOW accusations, is how we must decide if, HERE AND NOW, he has the proper temperament and ability to be dispassionately rational about controversial issues and situations, in order to be a good Justice. THAT is where I have to recognize that he is a failure. Regardless of what did or didn't happen when he was a teenager, his way of dealing with everything NOW, is to indulge in insults, accusations, paranoid ideation (his claims of a vast Democratic conspiracy) and worst of all threats of retribution, make it obvious that he should not even be allowed to continue as a LOWER LEVEL justice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
IgorFrankensteen
on
Tue 10/02/18 04:43 AM
|
|
When someone makes FALSE ACCUSATIONS, without proof, evidence, or witnesses who verify the allegations, or any relative details of the situation that is falsely claimed to have happened, then it is clear that the accuser is making up a FALSE STORY just to cause a widespread reaction which causes a mass mistake in opinion, and leads to a incorrect action by authority, or prevents an action by authority, even though the claims are just nonsense... Even if the false claims are repeated over and over, or broadcast on every TV channel, and discussed repeatedly by those who mistakenly believe them, they don't become TRUE no matter how much you mention them and how many people are excited by the false allegations. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, is the basic rule of law in the bill of rights in our country. Nobody can be blamed for something that is just a verbal claim of an incident in the distant past, with no proof, and no corroborating witnesses, (but the witnesses who are mentioned say that the incident didn't happen), and then you suddenly think that the person who is accused must certainly be guilty... No way. People cannot be considered "guilty with no chance of being proven innocent". This type of insane nonsense has been done repeatedly, (and they attempted it with the President in the election), and it is usually found to be false statements that were made up by someone seeking fame, money, (money comes from fame...), and political influence to advance or block a certain agenda. These people have no conscience, no morality, and would lie about anything in order to get what they want. The left wing media, (mass media like regular TV news on local channels, and public radio liberal leaning news), is largely to blame, for spreading the lies and false stories, and fluffing them up so much that people start believing they must be true, just because someone states they are true on TV.... Many of the senators who believe the recent false allegations have lied to the media themselves. One lied about his military service, one was charged with sexual assualt but still has his job, on and on... It seems like millions of people just don't have any common sense anymore. And the same people don't have any sense of morality or fairness, and believe that one is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. (Not believed to be "guilty" with no proof at all). There is a small hole in your reasoning which you probably ought to correct. That is, that accusations alone are indeed not enough to make a claim true; but the fact that supporting facts are not presented at the same time, doesn't logically prove that the OPPOSITE is true either. One of the ways that some very insidious propaganda has entered the mindsets of many people over the years, has been accomplished by PURPOSELY promoting an obviously unsupported FALSE story, and thereby goading people into assuming that the opposite is true. Your particular way of stating your case, looks like it accidentally provides support for such tactics. In particular, the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is being incorrectly applied here. You are correct that just repeating an accusation does not make a person guilty of it. However, it is ALSO true, and you have missed the trick, that lack of direct proof also does NOT prove that a person is INNOCENT. The correct use of the "innocent until proven guilty" concept is INCORRECT as many people try to claim it, including here. The legal rule is actually only written correctly, when you say "A person is considered innocent UNDER THE LAW until proven guilty UNDER THE LAW." It is FALSE to say that a person is ACTUALLY INNOCENT IN A REAL WAY, until proven guilty. If that were so, then it would be impossible for any serial killer or other criminal to ever do what they do: they would be CAUSED TO BE INNOCENT, by the fact that no one had proven them guilty. Kavanaugh, just as an example, is not CAUSED TO BE INNOCENT, because there has not been video or audio evidence presented yet, proving otherwise, in all of the accusations. And the rest of the rules apply just as much to Kavanaugh and others who make unsupported claims, too. His claims that he was not a heavy drinker, and was a virgin throughout high school and college are ALSO not proven true, simply because he repeats the claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tucker Carlson, who I am no fan of, is being accused of victim blaming Referring to the attention that Blasey’s allegation has received ― including Sen. Mazie Hirono’s message that the men in this country should “just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change” ― Carlson said that victims of sexual abuse should rely on due process and avoid having “trial by CNN.” “It’s pretty straightforward. If you believe a crime has been committed against you, you report it,” he said. “Go to the police. It’s not always easy, obviously, but it’s still your obligation as a citizen, not least to protect the rest of us from whomever you believe did it.” http://www.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-blames-sexual-assault-034939642.html as an assault survivor, I feel he makes a good point. I dont know that I would stretch it to being an 'obligation as a citizen', however I do believe the justice system can only act when it is given the REASON and the information to act upon. And with consensual and alternate sex being within the individual's rights to engage in, it is difficult to prove things like the presence or absence of such consent, what constituted consent, or what we can assume someone may or may not have consented to. These things are difficult to prove when it is reported quickly, let alone when it is left for years or decades. I dont think this woman was seeking justice on a teen TRYING to 'get some', especially since there was drinking involved and the attempt is not detailed much beyond that, and it happened decades ago. I think she just wanted the character of a potential SCOTUS to be investigated more deeply. In any case, I agree that reporting these things is important to try to prevent it from happening to others, but I understand why it is pointless in many cases to do so without clearer evidence of an actual 'crime'. Is it an 'obligation' to report crime? Is it understandable if one does not believe it can be proven or that it will cause danger to themselves, to leave the battle for another day? Two things: No, it's NOT an obligation to report a crime. Neither a legal one, or a moral one, according to all the philosophies that I am aware of. Not even one, says that it is. Next, since this fellows goal in complaining that the bad acts were NOT reported at the time, means that they might as well have not occurred, his reasoning is even more nonsensical. Bottom line for all the current to-do, is that according to the Republican Party that impeached Clinton in 1998, regardless of what may or may not have been proven happened in the deeper past, if someone lies about it in the present, it is an impeachable offense. And that Republican Party, with much of the same membership as now, is still running th country, and still insists that it was right in 1998 and beyond, to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate even a HINT of wrongdoing by those in high office, and then prosecute them both for those wrongs, AND for denying having committed them, to the fullest extent of the law. Either they need to admit that their philosophy about the law ONLY applies to opponents, or they need to do the same with current accused Republicans, as they have done with several well known Democrats. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Measuring the economy
|
|
I think the people who are talking about how their personal lives feel so much better because they got rid of their debts, are missing a VERY important point.
That is, that it isn't going into debt or not going into debt which is important. There is not only nothing magic about not borrowing money, it can actually be a horrible decision to stick to. Because what matters economically, is WHY you go into debt. Whether we are talking personal finances, or national economies, what you do regarding debt can be smart, conservative self-discipline, or it can be stupid, short-sighted and self destructive idiocy. Simple example: your car engine throws a rod, and dies, through no fault of yours. Just bad luck. It will cost more than you have in cash, to pay for the repair. The "never borrow money; if you can't afford it, don't do it" car owner will sit down and say "okay, no car till I find the cash." In the meantime, no car, means they have to quit the higher paying job that they had on the other side of town, and find something in walking distance, or with free transportation provided, so that they can continue to pay for the rest of their life needs. Because they refuse to borrow, their life declines in quality accordingly. The comparative person who thinks that SOME debt, which is actually necessary to further the big picture best interests, is a GOOD thing. So they get the car fixed or replaced, and gradually work their way out of debt. On a national scale, if the reason for spending more than the government took in in revenues is so that people can do self-indulgent things which contribute nothing permanent to the economy, everything will go to crap. But if they are spending more in order to do things such as fund higher education, or to fund research to enable better use of resources, then the added debt will be a brilliant act that will BENEFIT the nation. Historically, when nations have refused all debt, and simply waited for money enough to do things, their economies have been worse than sluggish, and have had to wait for serendipitous occurrences such as the sudden discovery of gold deposits or something, in order to progress. INTELLIGENT use of debt has worked consistently well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Measuring the economy
|
|
Americans are saving more. That's a good thing. Before the last crash people were overextended and living paycheck to paycheck. Not meaning to pick on you for this, just using it to add to the point that I think msharmony is trying to get at: it's an all too common mistake, when things go wrong, to look for one or two "core reasons" why things went bad, and then focus all the available energy on that one factor. For example, you are right that savings can be an important indicator of how one segment of the economy is behaving, or be a sign of consumer self-discipline. However, if you fail to look at WHY savings is or isn't happening, chances are very good, that your "indicator" of either good or bad times to come, will prove to have been illusory. Something that my lifetime as a repair technician taught me (repeatedly), is that JUST going after a single symptom of concern, is very often a good way to ultimately destroy what you are trying to fix or preserve. Example in a mechanism, is that something in the mechanism is supposed to be turning smoothly and quickly but it isn't. So the "fix it" person dumps lubricant throughout the device, until they movement speeds up to what they expect. The thing is, the reason it wasn't turning smoothly, wasn't a lack of grease, it was worn out bearings. Or it was misaligned gears and pulleys. Lubricating it ends up making the device more rapidly rip itself to shreds, at a higher velocity. Economically, one of the common factors used to decide whether or not the economy is growing and healthy, has been housing prices. When housing prices are stable or rising, it is thought to be good, and when they are falling, it is thought to be a bad sign. However, when the cost of housing is already too high to allow most people new to the market to afford to buy one, high hosing costs act only to force people to seek higher wages, without additional productivity. And that's not good for an economy. So. JUST pushing on one aspect of the economy, and expecting that to result in the overall economy to become more healthy, is rarely wise. As msharmony's post also points out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Understand vs Condone
|
|
I completely agree with the importance of your distinction, but disagree with your example. What your example parent did, was she CONDONED using brutal violence to oppose harassment.
What I was hoping you would be going after with this subject area, is that it's very important to seek to understand whatever you oppose, and not just blindly condemn whatever it is. This is a much more subtle thing to try to do, and many times when I or someone else has worked to learn about the viewpoint and reasons why someone did something wrong, such people have often been accused of condoning the wrong doing,just because they DID try to deal with the perpetrator's concerns. Your example could be adjusted a little to fit what I'm concerned about, by having the parent punish the child who clunked the other child for their violent act, AND punish the child who set them off. It's a lot more complicated story to tell, but I think it would be more useful. What I have come to see far too often, these days especially, have been crimes and other bad acts being excused, on the grounds that they were revenge for some OTHER crime or bad act. Historically, that kind of thinking has always been the ultimate primary cause of a free society devolving into an oppressive and destructive dictatorship. Ironically, this relates to your post about cults. Many cults and cult-like groups have been formed specifically as a way to attack perceived wrongdoing in the world. It's often the main reason why otherwise good and thoughtful people join cults: they think they need to excuse the BAD elements of the cult, because the cult's goal is to combat some seemingly greater evil in the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are you in a cult?
|
|
Good lists. I want to add, that as with some other things, if you go down these lists and find that some, but not all of the items apply, that doesn't mean you aren't in a problematic situation. Lots of these elements and warning signs are, entirely by themselves, indications of big trouble. In other words, just because you decide you aren't mixed up with a cult, doesn't mean that the opposite extreme is true, and that what you are involved with is wonderful and socially healthy. Someone who is using part of the TOOL KIT of a cult leader to accomplish other goals, is still very dangerous to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
IgorFrankensteen
on
Tue 09/18/18 08:25 PM
|
|
Here's what a tariff does: it makes the thing it's attached to, more expensive in the country applying the tariff. It doesn't do anything else at all. That's why they don't get used more than they do, and why the results when they are used, aren't always what people hope for. If the reason why an American company is having it's products made overseas is because the American buyers can't afford them otherwise, putting a tariff on the overseas-made product won't cause it to be made here. Because the change in PRICE, doesn't cause a change in the CUSTOMER PURCHASING POWER. Putting a tariff on raw materials doesn't always do what we might like, either. As with the finished product tariffs, a raw materials tariff causes the products made from those materials to cost more to sell here. If the market here won't tolerate a price rise, a tariff such as that will cause an end to local manufacture, rather than causing local raw materials to become more marketable. Excellent. You are elaborating on my point, though I don't think you realize it. What you are talking about, is what people hope to ACCOMPLISH by using tariffs; in the case of Europe, by more or less harassing them into making changes in their own policies. Similarly, the hope behind raising tariffs on raw materials, can be in order to help home country raw material companies (miners and the like) make more money, and expand. The thing is, the tariff itself, doesn't do any of that. That's the important point I'm trying to make. The tariff JUST adds cost to imports. If people here respond to the higher cost of imports by buying more expensive American made products instead, then Americans can benefit from that greater economic growth. But you can't count on a simple result. In the case of the aluminum and steel tariffs, for example, one American manufacturing company has already gone out of business, because the only way to compete with the finished steel products being shipped here from elsewhere, was to use cheaper imported steel. There are no tariffs on the finished goods involved, just the raw materials, so the result of the tariffs in that case, was fewer manufacturing jobs in the US. That's the thing to think about when tariffs are proposed: they are similar to a sledge hammer, in a way. They JUST pound the prices up. Just as a sledge hammer can only pound things (it has no claw on the other end to pull nails out), a tariff JUST increases costs. When JUST increasing costs is what you need to do, it's the right tool. But you can NOT count on tariffs to make it possible for Americans to buy MORE of anything, homegrown or not, because tariffs do NOT cause wages or other income to rise in the customer classes. Nope. You've completely missed the point now. What this thread is about, is the VERY basic way that Tariffs can be used to do things. You (again) are off on a tangent, talking about what people hope to ACCOMPLISH by the use of tariffs and other related trade manipulations. What I am talking about, is why some of those intentions will be helped by tariffs, and some will be hurt by them, because (again) tariffs RAISE PRICES on imported things. Yes, the country you slapped tariffs on MIGHT decide to cave in and alter how they deal with your country, or they might not. The point is, the tariff doesn't cause them to do that. It is certainly true that what Trump says he WANTS to have happen, is for China and others to change how they behave with the US in ways that will make things better for us. Whether or not that will happen, we'll have to wait to see. I'm not taking sides for or against, I am talking about the MECHANISM OF TARIFFS AND IT'S LIMITATIONS. Something to note, is that in general, the Republican Party has for a VERY long time, been OPPOSED to using tariffs. And the reasons why, are related directly to what I'm talking about: they are NOT a magic or simple fix for anything. Here's a link to a Bloomberg article, about how companies and other countries are NOT reacting to the tariffs by shifting to using American sources for everything, because the price points wont work out for them if they do. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-10/in-times-of-trade-war-companies-get-creative-to-avoid-tariffs This is part of why Republicans haven't favored tariffs, and why Democrats have tended to agree with them on that. Again. Tariffs are a very crude tool. The GOAL of setting them up doesn't change that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
IgorFrankensteen
on
Tue 09/18/18 10:22 AM
|
|
Is this a cautionary tale to apply to our own lives or a statement of rejoice to apply to the lives of 'others' or maybe a bit of both? In my life, I have had a strong underlying world view that what goes around comes around, it ties in heavily with another foundational value of treating others in the manner at least as well as what I would want me or a loved one to be treated I believe it strongly. so when I see or hear of grown people (not kids, who I give the benefit of still growing and developing their brain) doing awful things, my instinct is disgust, but my afterthought is actually empathy for either what made them so miserable or for what miserable thing they will have coming. Do you believe what goes around comes around? Is it any inspiration on your conscious and sense of right and wrong? Do you rejoice in such an idea or merely believe it is how it is? , if you believe it at all, that is. I've thought about this concept a lot. Between the unending barrage of Judeo-Christian insistence on a vengeful or at least very picky all-powerful being regulating everything, and the no-god-required version of the same thing that Karma always seemed to me to be, I got a lot of encouragement to believe in natural balance. But it just doesn't ring true to me. It's not just that all sorts of people abused me and others and got away it. And a very long time ago, I noodled through that being good and nice to others is a lie, if you do it to try to cause them to be good and nice to you in return. Perhaps my studies of history and science and business and a life of repairing stuff for a living did the trick. I learned that there ARE consequences to any action or choice, but those consequences are rarely simple and straightforward. The most impressive natural consequence for me, I've only understood lately, is that I know things. Once you know things, unless you suffer brain damage, you can't UNKNOW them again. Once you know that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the like aren't real, all sorts of things are permanently different in your life. Once someone cheats on you and leaves after declaring forever love, it's no longer possible to take declarations about future affection seriously. I imagine that when you lie to get what you want from someone, you know forever that what you did get, was based on the lies. That it wasn't real, except in a rather nasty "conquest" kind of way. Some people seem to be just fine with that knowledge, some aren't. Anyway, all that means, is that I don't believe in Karma, just consequences. And not all consequences are "fair and just." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Why Do Men Lies?
|
|
In my experience and observation, there's a number of reasons, and they aren't all simple.
One of the most subtle one, is that lots of people are persuaded when they are very young children, that lying is a normal, and actually encouraged element of getting along in the world. When I was a kid, I learned (without really understanding it) that I should lie to "make relatives who give unwanted gifts" feel good. That I should hide the fact that my teacher in school freaks me out, because of that weird mole on her upper lip. Later, as a young teen trying to find a job, I was encouraged to "maximize the positives" on my resume. In fact, whenever I was trying to accomplish anything, I was encouraged by EVERYONE else, to do that. To me as a young person, it was a kind of lying to dress up as though I had more money than I did, whenever I was trying to win someone's favor. What I'm getting at isn't that lying to win affection (or sexual favors or money, etc) is excusable, just that it's often less of a dramatic shift away from honesty, than it is an incremental step. In my observation, the people who are the best at lying for romance, are the ones who very early on, most cheerfully adapted to all the OTHER lies of normal life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The editorial board of the Washington Post has declared that President Trump is “complicit” for Hurricane Florence because of his views on climate change. The massive storm has not made landfall yet, but the Post published a column on Wednesday headlined, “Another hurricane is about to batter our coast. Trump is complicit.” The piece also notes that Trump has given “good advice” when issuing hurricane warnings via his Twitter feed before it launched an attack on the president. “When it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters,” the editorial board wrote. Billionaire Jeff Bezos’ paper then quotes a climate researcher who said that previous hurricanes would not have produced so much rain without “human-induced climate change” and Florence is another indication of global warming. “With depressingly ironic timing, the Trump administration announced Tuesday a plan to roll back federal rules on methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is the main component in natural gas. Drillers and transporters of the fuel were supposed to be more careful about letting it waft into the atmosphere, which is nothing more than rank resource waste that also harms the environment,” the Post’s editorial board wrote. “The Trump administration has now attacked all three pillars of President Barack Obama’s climate-change plan.” The piece concluded: “The president has cemented the GOP’s legacy as one of reaction and reality denial. Sadly, few in his party appear to care.” Conservative strategist Chris Barron told Fox News that the mainstream media ‘finds new ways to embarrass themselves and further erode Americans confidence in them” on a daily basis. “This column is so absurd it should be coming from The Onion not the Washington Post. To the extent that climate change is happening, it is a global phenomenon that has been occurring for decades and decades,” Barron said. “The media won’t give Trump credit for the economy but they will blame him for a hurricane. You can’t make this stuff up.” The Category 4 hurricane remains strong as it continues its approach to the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region with maximum sustained winds of 130 mph, the National Hurricane Center said in its 8 a.m. advisory. Florence was 530 miles south east of Cape Fear, North Carolina and moving west northwest at 17 mph. According to Fox News Senior Meteorologist Janice Dean, Florence could stall upon reaching the Carolina coast and make a slight shift south once it makes landfall, becoming a “major flooding event.” In addition to the hurricane-strength winds blowing ashore Friday, Florence has the potential to bring a storm surge upwards of six feet in parts of the coastline, including up to 13 feet from Cape Fear north to Cape Lookout. “Hurricane Florence will likely be another tragedy that will affect millions of Americans and it's disgusting when folks in the media will try to exploit it to attack the president,” Mediaite columnist Joseph Wulfsohn told Fox News. On Wednesday morning, President Trump urged caution to residents refusing to evacuate coastal towns, saying Florence is “bigger than anticipated.” “Hurricane Florence is looking bigger than anticipated,” Trump tweeted. “It will be arriving soon. FEMA, First Responders and Law Enforcement are supplied and ready. Be safe!” Trump also released a video urging residents in affected areas to “get out of its way." On Tuesday, the Washington Post published a different anti-Trump piece by MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough, who wrote that “Trump is harming the dream of America more than any foreign adversary ever could.” The “Morning Joe” namesake was criticized for tweeting that “Trump is damaging the dream of America more than any terrorist attack ever could” to promote the column, which was published on the 17th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/12/hurricane-florence-washington-post-declares-trump-is-complicit-for-dangerous-storm.html More Liberal "Logic" right there. Another perfect example of the Democrats bending, twisting and lying to fit their agenda. What's really funny is that when President Bush was out of office for almost two years the Democrats blamed the economy tanking on him. President Trump has been in office for almost two years and the Democrats are saying that the economy has gotten better recently because of President Obama. Hypocrites and liars that are out of their minds. Actually, this long post is false. You should be much more careful about what basic principles you declare or require in order to make your attacks. A single editorial in the Post, does not qualify as "The Democrats," or as "the Liberals," or anything else. If you want to claim the principle that a SINGLE DIATRIBE by one person is sufficient to label the entire group which you think they are a part of, then the Republicans, and the Conservatives, and a number of other groups are in BIG trouble as well. There are tons of single diatribes by people on THAT side of things, which are at least as nonsensical or as "stretched" as this example. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Sex or Power
|
|
The skies are gray and overcast and you are walking through the swamp. You come across a witch doctor who has a magic potion, of which one sip would align the forces of nature so that you achieve great power. This could be used to help others, to rule the world, stay well from sickness and disease, etc. There is only one side effect: you will never get to have sex. What do you think about this? Would you drink it? (I would) This is actually a rather amusing description of the essential concepts of what is now known as the Catholic Church. I'm not kidding, or trying to be insulting. Amongst the top guides of that Church (i.e. the priesthood), rituals involving the consumption of "magic potions" are regularly performed (they call them other things, but the Eucharist is essentially the consumption of a magic potion), and they believe that having sex will prevent them from hanging on to the "magic" power of direct alliance with their god. A lot of the rest of the Catholic education, could be seen as an extensive cover story or explanation for why the "magic powers" granted to them by the rituals, never seem to work. Oh, and the Catholics aren't alone in that pattern, they are just the most famous, and the most similar. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
