Community > Posts By > Redykeulous

 
Redykeulous's photo
Thu 07/27/17 12:09 PM
Edited by Redykeulous on Thu 07/27/17 12:11 PM

I've always thought that equality in education was the bigger issue in many of our civil rights laws. If education is a human right, shouldn't it be based on an equality of education?

Do you think it might be worth looking into how much it cost per student to provide the highest level of education for every student to their potential?

I understand that funds from state and local taxes often determine the standard of education in any particular area. Of course it makes sense that those who can afford more for their children would want that 'more' to go to their child's school system.

But if education is considered to be such a priority for our country that it's mandatory, shouldn't it also be provided equally?

So, do you think that equally funded education would provide enough equality within our diverse population to eventually illiminate the need for a law like AA?





Redykeulous's photo
Thu 07/27/17 11:41 AM

I hired & fired people while I managed a shop for a major corporation. Not once was I advised to hire over affirmative action.
There was no policy even remotely worded to that effect.

Hiring was my choice. I reviewed the resumes and job applications and chose the work history that would enhance my labor pool. I set interviews and got a feel for the personality of the person to see if they were professional. I even brought them out into the shop and had them verbally assess the equipment or verbally walk me thru a tool use. A mechanic can tell if a mechanic knows what they are talking about.



Very interesting topic. I thought I try to provide a little more information. This reply is not meant to represent Affirmative Action (AA) in its’ entirety but it may add some clarification.

AA was highly a controversial issue in the beginning however, it was proposed that the law regulate only employees in the public sector (government agencies) or employers with 50 or more employees in the private sector who are granted public sector contracts of $50,000 or more . The government, at the very least, should model equality in employment. Right?

Businesses can integrate an AA program even if it's not required to. But if they choose such a program, they often choose to comply with public sector law to mitigate their legal risk. If and AA program is not required and not in place, the company is not protected from being sued for discrimination but the company is not held to the complicated law under AA.

AA is still misunderstood today as being a requirement for balanced diversity. Adhering to AA is only required in certain cases and it never enforces the employment of a person who does not meet the job qualifications. However, if an AA program is being enforced and applications do not represent the needed pool of diversity, the company is required to create a “Reach Out” program in order to draw in a wider applicant diversity for future jobs.



Redykeulous's photo
Sun 12/28/14 08:55 PM

the only mind that will have the far reaching insight to create no extinction, capable of riding the wave of the future, will be those who find such principles in their own mind by focusing not on no extinction for 1, or no extinction for some, but rather truly seeking no extinction for all...

and those shall be few...

and indeed, few shall pass on into the 22 century.


No extinction for all - that's the ONLY way to save humanity. Not that all humans would be saved, but enough of all the diversity of life that makes it possible for humans to survive into the future.

Redykeulous's photo
Sun 12/28/14 08:50 PM

Conrad, I really would love to read that book! I saw the movie which is one of my fav depressing movies of all time lol. Always meant to read the book, since from the comments on the movie, it had a bit of a different plot.

Some of you on here grew up during the worst of the cold war years (50's-60's). I grew up on the other side of the Iron Curtain and remember vividly our nuclear drills in school... which amounted to crouching against a wall and waiting for the end of the world. I still have the occasional nightmare about it tbh. If there is any chance to teach our kids how to work towards peace when they grow up, make them go through those kinds of drills every week while showing simulated and real after effects. It worked on me.





Wow min1x, your comments flashed me back. Our nuclear attack drills were modified over time. First it was serious business. We all had to crowd in the halls away from the windows and face the metal lockers and crouch down, duck our heads and cover with our arms. Time passed and it became more apparent that we were not likely to survive a direct hit, which we would likely sustain as we lived in the Chicago suburbs. We simple slit beneath our desks and were told not to look out the window for any reason.

I agree, it was a scary way to grow up but our generation sure got some great science fiction out of it. I'm happy to meet you Min1x from the other side of the iron fear that held us all hostage for so long.

Redykeulous's photo
Sun 12/28/14 08:41 PM





Lol Blondey you know my views on any divine portents or otherwise. ;-)

But nothing those guys can come up with will destroy the human race. Not even Iran really. But they can probably do a lot of hurt. I don't think (cross fingers) that any extremist group posseses nuclear weapons. What I would worry about those guys is biological ones.

oh that puts my mind at ease mini ... extinction by germ warfare ... Every nurse's nightmare lol :-)


Actually biological warfare is already out there and I learned that in my Nuclear Biological Chemical Warfare course in the 80s. Problem is that it can't be controlled which is why it hasn't been used.
hiya navy girl .. Always lovely to see you in mingleland .) Lack of control didnt stop the military using agent orange .. Admittedly it's purpose was not to wipe out a human population but to destroy jungle ground cover .. Atleast that's what I remember about it . it's impact was far more reaching and ongoing than anticipated .


Agreed about the agent orange and you are correct it wasn't used to wipe out the human population but it certainly did affect humans. We can disburse biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon to destroy the local population but how do you contain it to only wipe out only the local population and not continue further to other areas? Dispursing an airborne substance that will kill every living thing it comes in contact with is a tricky situation as we don't control mother nature.


Quite agree. We blast the "enemy" to hell but never bother to clean up the mess. I wonder how long it will be until some politician admits that our water, air, and food has been affected by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. How often is it even mentioned in American news?

Redykeulous's photo
Sun 12/28/14 08:36 PM




Lol Blondey you know my views on any divine portents or otherwise. ;-)

But nothing those guys can come up with will destroy the human race. Not even Iran really. But they can probably do a lot of hurt. I don't think (cross fingers) that any extremist group posseses nuclear weapons. What I would worry about those guys is biological ones.

oh that puts my mind at ease mini ... extinction by germ warfare ... Every nurse's nightmare lol :-)


Actually biological warfare is already out there and I learned that in my Nuclear Biological Chemical Warfare course in the 80s. Problem is that it can't be controlled which is why it hasn't been used.
hiya navy girl .. Always lovely to see you in mingleland .) Lack of control didnt stop the military using agent orange .. Admittedly it's purpose was not to wipe out a human population but to destroy jungle ground cover .. Atleast that's what I remember about it . it's impact was far more reaching and ongoing than anticipated .


And to my understanding the EPA has just approved the use of the major chemicals used in Agent Orange for crop dusting in America. There are petitions to the USDA to stop Dow from producing the deadly chemical. Does anyone really know what they are eating, drinking and inhaling? We are not eradicating a pesky week, we are bringing many life forms to extinction, every day.

Redykeulous's photo
Sun 12/28/14 08:30 PM


What affect would our demise have on life on the rest of the planet? Interesting question. I don'��t think it would matter how we become extinct, the legacy we’d leave would continue in a lethal chain of events.

Our garbage is not necessarily biodegradable. The 100 million plastic bags we use every year can take anywhere from 10 to 100 years to break down (not biodegrade) but break into tiny pieces. Those pieces along with other plastic that will leach toxic bisphenol A and PS oligomer will continue to be eaten by other animals, in the water or as part of the food chain, and much life will become extinct.

Many plant species will be altered or disappear completely in wide areas of land. Changes in plant life means that, animals and insects will be affected.

Our nuclear garbage, which spans the globe, will continue to be problematic as the holding tanks we built for expended fuel rods begin to break down. Aquifers and waterways will become highly toxic. Our fracking chemicals buried in the ground and our coal ash will add more poison, destroying more plant, animal, and insect life.

We can'��t forget about all the chemicals left behind in the form of pharmaceuticals, cleaning agents, and all the 'weed' and pesticides and acids. It's mind boggling.

The viruses left behind in laboratories, the GMO experiments set free to cross pollinate if there are any living pollinators left.
In addition to the stated issues, layers of Earth's atmosphere already compromised by human activity and the huge changes to the living environment, we will have sufficiently destroyed the interdependent ecosystem that maintained ALL life on the planet.

It may require 10's of thousands of years for the Earth to be cleansed. Life will maintain in small numbers even if that life is less complex and a new ecosystem will form with new plants, new animals and insects and probably a whole new weather pattern. Some land will undoubtedly be gone, some changed, and maybe new land raised up.

We developed as part of this interdependent ecosystem but if we leave the legacy we are currently ignoring, we could quite possibly adversely affect all life in the future for 10’s of thousands of years.
hello redykeulous .. A warm welcome from across the pacific and thank you so much for sharing your insight . .. Mind boggling indeed especially the release of mutated man made organisms .. toxins and biochemical warfare agents into the environment .. I hadn't considered that aspect at all and cannot fathom the consequences for any ecosystem . Gives new meaning to survival of the strongest and would make a great sci-fi horror movie... Smiling :-)


thank-you for the welcome Blondey111. Science fiction - absolutely consider the Hunger Games trilogy. This is good topic to explore and I'm glad you brought it up. Another good question might be.. what can we do to prevent our own extinction?

Redykeulous's photo
Sat 12/27/14 10:51 PM
Edited by Redykeulous on Sat 12/27/14 10:58 PM
What affect would our demise have on life on the rest of the planet? Interesting question. I don'��t think it would matter how we become extinct, the legacy we’d leave would continue in a lethal chain of events.

Our garbage is not necessarily biodegradable. The 100 million plastic bags we use every year can take anywhere from 10 to 100 years to break down (not biodegrade) but break into tiny pieces. Those pieces along with other plastic that will leach toxic bisphenol A and PS oligomer will continue to be eaten by other animals, in the water or as part of the food chain, and much life will become extinct.

Many plant species will be altered or disappear completely in wide areas of land. Changes in plant life means that, animals and insects will be affected.

Our nuclear garbage, which spans the globe, will continue to be problematic as the holding tanks we built for expended fuel rods begin to break down. Aquifers and waterways will become highly toxic. Our fracking chemicals buried in the ground and our coal ash will add more poison, destroying more plant, animal, and insect life.

We can'��t forget about all the chemicals left behind in the form of pharmaceuticals, cleaning agents, and all the 'weed' and pesticides and acids. It's mind boggling.

The viruses left behind in laboratories, the GMO experiments set free to cross pollinate if there are any living pollinators left.
In addition to the stated issues, layers of Earth's atmosphere already compromised by human activity and the huge changes to the living environment, we will have sufficiently destroyed the interdependent ecosystem that maintained ALL life on the planet.

It may require 10's of thousands of years for the Earth to be cleansed. Life will maintain in small numbers even if that life is less complex and a new ecosystem will form with new plants, new animals and insects and probably a whole new weather pattern. Some land will undoubtedly be gone, some changed, and maybe new land raised up.

We developed as part of this interdependent ecosystem but if we leave the legacy we are currently ignoring, we could quite possibly adversely affect all life in the future for 10’s of thousands of years.

Redykeulous's photo
Tue 05/06/14 11:27 PM


Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. One of these rights is friendship.



Yes indeed, the right to social acceptance.

Redykeulous's photo
Tue 05/06/14 11:17 PM
During the Holocaust There were many Christians who risked and ever gave their own lives to help their Jewish friends.

If your religion cannot accommodate loyalty, compassion, and love for neighbors and friends or even those who suffer in other countries, regardless of beliefs, then your religion prevents you from experiencing the full extended of love, humility, compassion and hope in this world.

If you think you are writing a resume for your next life, then you better get some good experience in this one.

Your truly,
just another atheist

Redykeulous's photo
Sun 01/19/14 09:42 PM

OH my goodness, let's take the pragmatist's approach and end this shall we? Let's first define 'religion' and apply it to this particular debate. Hopefully when this is over, we'll have one more thing to be thankful for today: the end of this dumb thread.

....

Here you might say, "But you said they could have that knowledge! Surely God will give them that!" Now we jump into the realm of uncertain assumptions. As a believer myself, I do believe everyone will have the opportunity to know the most important truths, but who the hell are we to say when that is? Do you know how many billions have died without knowing a thing about Christianity as you've defined it? What about them? Will you condemn billions both living and dead for experiences they've never had, for not taking an interest in the beliefs of a group of people who have become characterized by many evil things as well as good? People will know when they will know, in this life or the next, the most important thing for a person like you or I is not to ramble listlessly about the nature truth that our own understanding is so hugely limited in and to sit in God's throne and make His calls. As Jeannie has so aptly put more than once, the ultimate purpose, the real call of the Christians ought to be one of love.

Have you noticed what this thread is sickeningly absent of Uchea? =(

So Atheism is not a religion, but a paradigm, and a very natural one. So let's leave each other be and get to the respective things we find most important.

And let's pretend this thread never existed and have a bloody happy thanksgiving eh?

Cheers everyone,

Mark


Good post - and entertaining too.

Redykeulous's photo
Sun 01/19/14 09:33 PM



Might I add with my first statement, one man who found differences in Darwin's model molecularly compared to the real life model was from Yale University...?


Are you referring to something called punctuated speciation?


I think he gave up on his thread and isn't talking to us anymore.


That happens often in these threads. He may claim a victory and feel good about himself. Oh well, sometimes we have to claim our own victories as we walk away.

Redykeulous's photo
Sun 01/19/14 09:29 PM

"Conrad," did I say that? If a strand of DNA contains ABCD, ABCD, ABCD in sequential order, would not Darwin's idea of nothing on Earth having pattern be laid bare? Does random accident with no intelligence produce order? DNA itself can be called proof of "Intelligent Design," correct?


With the exception of monozygotic twins (1 egg & 1 sperm) there is no persistently consistent pattern to DNA. If fact, even in the case of identical twins, their DNA is not identical for very long as our environments also have changing effects and no two people experience live in exactly the same way.


Redykeulous's photo
Sun 01/19/14 09:25 PM

Might I add with my first statement, one man who found differences in Darwin's model molecularly compared to the real life model was from Yale University...?


Are you referring to something called punctuated speciation?

Redykeulous's photo
Sat 01/18/14 09:40 PM
Miles, Of course I was not offended at all, in fact your comments gave me the opportunity to broaden the view of our side of the story to a view from my side.

All of us can only speak from our own experiences and I totally agree with you that the experiences we often get from the media are not always worthy of our acceptance.

As always, thanks for the discussion and like you, I am happy to have found acceptance of the diversity between us, it's a rare thing. I think all friendships, in fact all good relationships, are built on trust. It gives the power to see the truth that exists beyond our differences. Peace!

DIDDY DEE: I had to laugh when I read your post. You are NOT a contradiction - unless you forgot to mention that you're a politician.. laugh

I have a question for you though. I'm not up on the political history of Britain since transitioning into the UK. But it's my understanding that Great Britain had a national religion prior to Ireland's inclusion. Is there still a national religion? If so, is it inclusive of the Ten Commandments? I could look it up but it's your home so I'm deferring to you. Thanks.

Redykeulous's photo
Fri 01/17/14 09:09 PM





Prohibiting worship of "graven images" and "taking the lord's name in vain" seem contrary to the freedom of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Prohibiting "Coveting" (defined as: to strongly want something that someone else has) anyone's mate or possessions is a violation of individual freedom to want something (provided that no criminal act ensues). It is also irrational and unrealistic – providing that it is a thought, not an action.

As long as those are self-imposed sanctions, there is no objection. However, if they are imposed upon others without their consent, there IS objection.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/14/most-of-the-10-commandments-violate-u-s-constitution-atheists-say-in-oklahoma-suit/



what about if I have a church and I need a secretary and my belief is homosexuality is dead wrong. Should the Govt. make me hire a gay person and have to watch what I say or do because this employee may see this as discrimination. Now this has happened many times.

Believers are the ones being forced legalized discrimination against churches against businesses against individuals. yet u will say that's ok. That's called Legalized discrimination forced upon us by our own Govt.


Shalom Miles, It's been a long time. If the Church has legally declared it's religious standing, by becoming a non-profit organization, then they have the right to discriminate in certain practices, such as hiring. Notice the Catholic has not female priests or male nuns. Many parochial Schools have fired teachers for being gay and sometimes (in the case of one of my relatives) they are fired simply for supporting something like gay marriage.

Now, when a huge non-profit organization, such as a hospital, has an open door policy in accepting both, clients and employees from the general population, then (in my opinion) they don't have the right to enforce the personal beliefs of the hierarchy on those people.

I believe that is what you are referring to and that is still being battled out on that big hill with white palace with any number of revolving doors.

Shalom my friend, may this new year be filled with joy.




Shalom Red.

I agree on health care and all those things because we have a right to those things. I do believe that the gay community could be a little more compassionate themselves. Their are plenty of Hosp. to go to.. You do not need to go to a catholic hosp or Jewish for something they disagree with in their beliefs. When these Hospitals opened it was for the good of the people and to show their faith by action.

Employers that have say a Board of Directors a publicly traded company. No I believe they can not refuse anyone its a company and a company is not a church or individual.

Churches and solely owned companies I believe have a right to follow their beliefs without any resource.

I believe in these trying times we could all be more compassionate to everyone. I believe IMO that the gay communities go out of their way to cause problems when a church or whatever business to say " You will do as I say" and the news gets ahold of it and the next thing you know we are having protests ect and all this is hurting our economy and our love for one another. We should not bother each other if we can not get along. love one another comes in many forms. Take care Red always Glad to see you Shalom


In cases of emergency people are taken to the closest hospital. Gay people, transgender people don't wear tags with their sexual orientation on it and Hospitals don't put signs up refusing to treat people who have different religious values. If a hospital employs anyone from the population and accepts anyone from the general population, there should never be an exception to a person being treated like a human being.

Most of the hospitals around me are religious focused and they are all different. I have had great experiences with wonderful caring staff and to my knowledge there has never been a question over my sexuality. It just wasn't ever brought up. Thousands of people are treated in such hospitals, everyday with no problem. So when a problem arises, it makes the news and of course then it seems like there is always a problem. It's not so.

Do you know, I once had a priest, in a Catholic hospital, ask me if I wanted to pray with him. I simply said "No, but I do appreciate your concern". He was concerned and he even asked me if there was some other religion I took comfort in so that he might find someone for me. Imagine that. I took his hand and said that what I took comfort in was the fellowship of caring human beings. He squeezed my hand and said he would check on me.

You see, not one person I know who is gay is any different than me, in fact I'm an atheist and most of my gay friends are Christians or Jewish. The only problem that exists is when a person is PERCEIVED to be different, as with my transgender friends and some of my friends gay friends who are in committed relationships and make it known who their partner is. That's when prejudice rears its ugly head.

I have no problem with any medical center or hospital hanging out a sign and saying we don't hire XXX or treat XXX due to our religious convictions. I have no problem with that, but you know what, where there's money to be had, there are few who would make such restrictions.

So as far as I'm concerned, there should NEVER be a time when the religious hierarchy of any organization doing business in the private sector should be allowed to enforce behaviors on other simply because it coincides with religious convictions of the hierarchy.

Shalom

Redykeulous's photo
Tue 01/14/14 09:28 PM


nah,, people born into slums , losing their jobs, etc,, are just not working 'hard enough',, or else they could get on a bus and go find a job opportunity just WAITING for them that would pay them enough to be successful,,,,slaphead slaphead



its quite a ridiculous culture,,, as Malcolm X said,,,




although the enlightened will say they don't 'hate' anyone, they




Even now there are still people who cannot see Malcolm X The Visionary. Great quote


Redykeulous's photo
Tue 01/14/14 09:16 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/14-8
Published on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 by Free Press
Net Neutrality Is Dead—Here's How to Get It Back
by Craig Aaron

If Net Neutrality is not taken back by the FCC, IN YOUR OPINION, what changes would you see on the internet and with the various technologies we use to interact with the internet?

Redykeulous's photo
Tue 01/14/14 09:03 PM



Prohibiting worship of "graven images" and "taking the lord's name in vain" seem contrary to the freedom of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Prohibiting "Coveting" (defined as: to strongly want something that someone else has) anyone's mate or possessions is a violation of individual freedom to want something (provided that no criminal act ensues). It is also irrational and unrealistic – providing that it is a thought, not an action.

As long as those are self-imposed sanctions, there is no objection. However, if they are imposed upon others without their consent, there IS objection.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/14/most-of-the-10-commandments-violate-u-s-constitution-atheists-say-in-oklahoma-suit/



what about if I have a church and I need a secretary and my belief is homosexuality is dead wrong. Should the Govt. make me hire a gay person and have to watch what I say or do because this employee may see this as discrimination. Now this has happened many times.

Believers are the ones being forced legalized discrimination against churches against businesses against individuals. yet u will say that's ok. That's called Legalized discrimination forced upon us by our own Govt.


Shalom Miles, It's been a long time. If the Church has legally declared it's religious standing, by becoming a non-profit organization, then they have the right to discriminate in certain practices, such as hiring. Notice the Catholic has not female priests or male nuns. Many parochial Schools have fired teachers for being gay and sometimes (in the case of one of my relatives) they are fired simply for supporting something like gay marriage.

Now, when a huge non-profit organization, such as a hospital, has an open door policy in accepting both, clients and employees from the general population, then (in my opinion) they don't have the right to enforce the personal beliefs of the hierarchy on those people.

I believe that is what you are referring to and that is still being battled out on that big hill with white palace with any number of revolving doors.

Shalom my friend, may this new year be filled with joy.

Redykeulous's photo
Tue 01/14/14 08:40 PM
Edited by Redykeulous on Tue 01/14/14 08:44 PM
I a��m not sure that anyone knows exactly what Pascal was attempting to accomplish with his wager on God but there has been speculation over the years.

I think it's pretty well accepted that Pascal was using the idea of a wager on the existence of God as a way to test or perhaps broaden his theories on probabilities.

I think it i��s obvious that anyone as intelligent as Pascal was, would not have made the errors in logic that he did with his wager. First of all, he made assumptions about A God, the Judeo-Christian God, but it was well known, even then, that many beliefs about various gods existed.

One of the assumptions Pascal made was that believing in his God could provide an eternal existence. In addition he assumes that such an existence is a positive thing. So he has automatically increased the probability of believing ��correctly��. In other words, he has (illogically) determined that the flip of a coin is not 50/50 but is weighted in favor of God being the correct choice.

There is another error Pascal makes, he assumes that what we have to gain or lose in this game makes it worth playing as we all decide whether to believe or not.

He was quite right to make the game a subjective one as there is no way to know if God is or is not but subjectively. But in HIS subjectivity he assumes that if there is a God and we don'��t believe, we lose the greatest values God gives, truth and happiness.

So he suggests that the choice is easy, because we have only untruth (error) and utter misery to lose by choosing to believe in God.

That makes a lot of sense but for one thing. Betting on God to win based of those assumptions is, itself false, because there is another assumption, quite aside from assumptions of God.

If eternity can be assumed then how we gain it must also be assumed, that it can only be gained by faith and faith depends only on a subjective belief that is not dependent on material truth or a wager.

But Pascal was certainly able to prove some his theory of probabilities with this exercise. He demonstrated, in a round-a-bout way, that even without a belief in God, one can demonstrate truth, as he did by proving this theory, and be happy.

In effect he demonstrated that making a wager on God, would be a losing bet.

Previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 24 25