100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Redykeulous
|
|
|
ITs interesting that as a culture we seem so pissed at spending for things like education or welfare but so amped up about spending on prisons and military/weapons,,,, I just dont get how our priorities are so off whack,,,, One has to ask the questions Who Benefits from building Prisons and Military Weapons? and Who Benefits from spending on Education and Welfare? Do you think that the wizard of oz just waves his magic wand and the all this military stuff just appears or would think that the million or so workers in the defense industry might benefit just a little from having a high paying job? Or should we just eliminate their jobs and use that money to support them with welfare? That seems to be your position.. Let's eliminate all the warfare - and then spring for the revocation of those high paid employees into GREEN industries.... Some solutions are so easy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, you just didn't know what you were talking about. Which is not a crime. Where is the welfare and all that on the graph I so kindly provided? Showing where the federal tax dollars go. It is in the 4% listed as other. Looks to me like it is in the 13% called "Safety net." Sounds like a lump-all phrase. And SS is not an entitlement, it's a ponzi scheme run by the government. Perhaps the word jaded might work better in front of the oldhippie. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social Security with the exception of SSI federal welfare is not an entitlement nor was it ever. Medicaid, Tanf, GA, and child care are entitlements given out to the population withing certain income bracket. Those said income brackets are stressing the economy even further as more recieve benefits during these economical crisis situations. The good news is even though we are all poor right now, crime has dropped!!! The funding of all of those programs come from the same source. The extension of benefits back to the public, come out of the same fund. When the budget is figured all distributions are charted as one piece of the "entitlement" pie. My mother worked for two years before she was married, yet she collected social security benefits from the age of 65 to her death at 80. I consider that an entitlement don't you? If not, how is that different from a child or adult who collects SSD? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think often when christians speak out against HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE, its equated with being less than nice to homosexuals It’s not the words alone that are equated to hostility but the actions that accompany the oral sentiments. The “don’t say gay” legislation that threaten the existence of straight-gay alliances in schools and would forbid any kind of sex education that could be construed as addressing the “HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE” specifically with regards to safe sex. And more legislation that would prohibit the recognition of any kind of domestic relationship other than heterosexual marriage. Such attempts have one goal, to restrict recognition of those involved in the “HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE”. Unfortunately the same legislation would not recognize single parent households, unmarried couples with or without children or any other form of domestic cohabitation, gender identity not-withstanding. So intense is the religous homophobia that attempts to exclude it must also punish those who identify as heterosexual. Then there are those who continue to insist that some quasi-psychological treatment along with some Bible study will help homosexuals to “pray-away-the-gay” at the same time those who practice their pseudoscience, are ignoring the actual damage they inflict by their homophobia. And then there is the would-be legislation that would prohibit gays & lesbians from raising children – even their own. Not ONE of those – or of many more – would exist were it not for the millions of Christians who believe as they do. On the other hand, there are many who live the “HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE” who are also Christian – to them I apologize because they are disadvantaged two-fold, not only must they explain why Christian values do not have to be that irrational, but they must also fight against those irrational views. and often when atheist speak out against how irrational they believe certain christian claims to be, its equated with being less than tolerant or nice to christians Once again there is an assumption that the source of conflict stems from words – without acknowledging the actions that accompany those words. Here again we can look at the types of legislation that a great number of Christians support. Bullying is ok, as long as there is a religious reason behind it – which also happens to be the view that is taken to deny schools the ability to incorporate programs that would prevent bullying. Such programs – of course- would have to create a climate of inclusion, in part, by teaching about gays & lesbians in history, or in current events, as real people of value and importance. ,,it happens across the board, you hear about it more from christians because they gather in ORGANIZED groups which are easily observable,, where as atheists are much less likely to have such organization or publicity or visibility Actually, it’s not the visibility that is most noticeable, but the irrational behaviors. In addition to what I’ve already posted, there are those who continue attempts to pass legislation that would either prohibit the teaching of evolution (and other sciences) unless there were a more “balanced” view to include some form of creationist view. There are issues about abortion, specifically kept alive through Christian beliefs, and now there has been proposed legislation that would count a woman’s pregnancy from the day after her last period – which could make her pregnant even before she had sex. And the legislation that attempts to attribute personhood, with full legal human rights, to a zygote. And there are many Christians, including some very powerful figures, who maintain that climate change is a hoax, simply because their study of the Bible suggests that God would not allow humans to destroy His cherished creations. And the legislation that would make it a felony for a woman to do anything that would harm her unborn child, meaning that any miscarriage or stillbirth would require investigation. And, it would certainly have to make the morning after pill illegal – wouldn’t it. Even more irrational is the fact that the same people trying to adopt such legislation, also support corporations like Monsanto, Dupont, and continue to allow carcinogens, toxins, and other chemicals in the products that no doubt cause miscarriages, congenetal disease, and cancers and other birth defects. And there is legislation that would make all abortion illegal, without regard to safety or health of either mother or the unborn. AND THEN, there is the even more irrational – abortion would be illegal, except to save the mother. That’s pretty darn irrational considering previous ideas of pre-sex pregnancies and zygote personhood. I can only apologize that such people ever find their way into power – but they didn’t get there unsupported. Tolerance and even acceptance is always easier to extend when there are grand scale measures of inclusiveness and less likely to occur when words take shape through behaviors intended to exclude. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Wed 04/25/12 09:47 PM
|
|
The topic is about a criterion for belief, in addition to what it takes for something to be a bit/piece of knowledge. I'm interested in discussing what constitutes sufficient reason to believe something(X), and what constitutes an adequate criterion to call something(X) knowledge. I did dissect the OP in the quote above, just to have the main points in front of me as I consider the scenario of the virgin sacrifice to the volcano god. We would have to consider how the idea of such a sacrifice evolved. Likely the tribe was strongly patriarcical, possibly holding women in high regard, especially virgins. So thinking like a man about the fire of desire, and what it takes to soothe the flame, a leader might possibly consider that the volcano god was a male. First, becasue of it's great strength and power, and secondly because of the great 'heat' it generated from 'below'. The rational conclusion might be to give the burning god a virgin to soothe its desire. It would be easy to convince other males of this idea, because they could relate. It would not be necessary to convince the women of a strongly patriarchical system, as they are not normally allowed to dissent. If the fist attempt seemed to work, there would be little reason to question the rational basis of the idea - and so it becomes the thing to do. If the ritual fails to soothe the volcano god, it's very likely that the egocentrism within the patriarcical system would prohibit the consideration of having been wrong in the first place, so there must be another answer. This time the answer may not be as logical, because the answer must also serve as justification for the continuance of the ritual so that system of patriarchy does not suffer. Aha- it must be the woman, she must not have been pure. We learn a great deal through the collective and traditionally accepted knowledge of the tribe. As children we believe because, by nature, we are dependent for our knowledge on the elders of the tribe. Later, through trial and error and even more rational thought, an individual may begin to question the logic and the beliefs however, once again, due to our natural tendancies for social accord and personal well-being, we don't rock the boat. So I would say that part of the criterion for belief is a natural tendancy to maintain social accord, along with limited freedom for dissention and in part due to an inability to come up with a more rational idea without exposing one's self to loss of status or upsetting the status quo of the tribe. So, the lack of freedom to think and act for one's self (without negative reprocussion)allows for the continuance of irrational tribal behavior. At the same time, those who have the status of being in authority (parents, elders, males/females, leaders) are believed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A question of tolerance...
|
|
I think peoples beliefs are their personal business, and that beliefs dont need to be tolerated unless they turn into behavior then I think certain actual behaviors exhibited by an individual may or may not be wise to tolerate,,,, Problem is, if the entire reason you aren't tolerating something is based on religion......then you are stepping into their personal business in effect which you really have no place doing. But again what if the core tenants of a faith are to lie, kill, harm, and do mean things to those NOT of your faith? Christians are annoying but they don't have a holy war on everyone else. Can you tolerate a faith out to either force you to their way or kill you? Im not aware of such a universal faith most FAITHS Im aware of have books with many doctrines that can and have been interpreted many ways depending upon who reads them,,,, you then clearly have not read a Quaran then. Read up on conduct pertaining towards infidels. there is similar conduct in my bible the interpretation lies in whether one perceives it as an absolute instruction/commandment or a specific instruction to specific group for a specific circumstance,,, You are aware the bible is in two parts and that the New testimate was the new contract with God (so to speak, and Jesus never said to lie to people, hurt people, or kill people and Jesus NEVER EVER DECLARED HOLY WAR METAPHORICALLY OR OPENLY ON ANYONE! That is something a lot of people who bash Christianity do not get and Christians seem to not understand. There is no "New Testimate" commanding Islam to live in grace with their fellow man. At least in Jesus's two commandments he did ordain us to walk in grace among one another. That is not the case with Islam. The Quaran is pretty clear how to deal with infidels like me. How can people say the Holy War is Metaphorical when the commands are clearly written? Yea, the soldiers in Christianity are just soldiers for conversion. A nuisance and especially irritating when their views become so fundamental that they threaten to create legal avenues through which to make people conform to their religious beliefs. You know, like all that crusades but that was in the 11th – 13th centuries. Today as they take their missionary work to other countries they teach that the bible is so against certain groups of people that they should be shunned and even support laws for punishment by death if their caught being – well being who they are, gay. But that’s in other countries, here those fundamentalists just want to change laws so that women no longer have the right to reproductive choice, and that bullying is ok if there’s a strong religious belief that backs it up, and of course they think that having laws which require men and women to equally paid for equal jobs is absolutely ridiculous and homosexuals who are raising children should not be entitled to all the benefits and legal protections as married couples, even though most of those protections specifically benefit the children. But, I know, that’s all just stemming from the most fundamentalist view… strange however, that there are so many of them that we have to be out in droves to fight against their take over. And fortunately we do not live in a theocracy where what we belief are dictated to us BY LAW…. Yet. Yea, I guess it comes down to how one interprets scripture and formally those beliefs become embedded in the law. Here those fundamentalists are just a nuisance, unless they go to countries and support hate, or when they enshrine their beliefs into our laws, or when they want to bully someone using their religion as a good reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/303-211/10896-fate-of-japan-and-the-whole-world-depends-on-no-4-reactor
Fate of Japan and the Whole World Depends on No. 4 ReactorBy Akio Matsumura, Finding the Missing Link 11 April 12 Fukushima Daiichi site: Cesium-137 is 85 times greater than at Chernobyl accident. Japan’s former Ambassador to Switzerland, Mr. Mitsuhei Murata, was invited to speak at the Public Hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 22, 2012, on the Fukushima nuclear power plants accident. Before the Committee, Ambassador Murata strongly stated that if the crippled building of reactor unit 4 - with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground - collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4. In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries. Ambassador Murata informed us that the total numbers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421 (396+615+566+1,535+994+940+6375). I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods. I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]: In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident. The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da-Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed. Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 - roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel). It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet. Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival. There was a Nuclear Security Summit Conference in Seoul on March 26 and 27, and Ambassador Murata and I made a concerted effort to find someone to inform the participants from 54 nations of the potential global catastrophe of reactor unit 4. We asked several participants to share the idea of an Independent Assessment team comprised of a broad group of international experts to deal with this urgent issue. I would like to introduce Ambassador Murata’s letter to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to convey this urgent message and also his letter to Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda for Japanese readers. He emphasized in the statement that we should bring human wisdom to tackle this unprecedented challenge. It seems to us that the Nuclear Security Summit was focused on the North Korea nuclear issue and on the issue of common security from a terrorist attack. Our appeal on the need for the independent assessment at Reactor 4 was regarded as less urgent. We predicted this outcome in light of the nature of the Summit. I suppose most participants fully understood the potential disaster which will affect their countries. Nevertheless, they decided not to raise the delicate issue, perhaps in order to not ruffle their diplomatic relationship with Japan. I was moved by Ambassador Murata’s courage in pressing this issue in Japan. I know how difficult it is for a former career diplomat to do this, especially in my country. Current and former government officials might be similarly restricted in the scope of their actions, as Ambassador Murata is, but it is their responsibility to take a stand for the benefit of our descendants for centuries to come - to pass on a world safer than our ancestors passed us. If Japanese government leaders do not recognize the risk their nation faces, how could the rest of us be persuaded of the looming disaster? And if the rest of us do not acknowledge the catastrophe we collectively face, who will be the one to act? Tokyo, March 25, 2012 Dear Secretary-General, Honorable Ban Ki-moon, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude for your considerate letter dated 2 March, 2012. Your moral support for a United Nations Ethics Summit will remain a constant source of encouragement for my activities. Please allow me to pay a tribute to your great contribution to strengthen nuclear safety and security. The current Nuclear Summit in Seoul is no doubt greatly benefiting from the high-level meeting you convened last September. I was asked to make a statement at the public hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 23. I raised the crucial problem. of N0.4 reactor of Fukushima containing1535 fuel rods. It could be fatally damaged by continuing aftershocks. Moreover, 50 meters away from it exists a common cooling pool for 6 reactors containing 6375 fuel rods! It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on NO.4 reactor. This is confirmed by most reliable experts like Dr. Arnie Gundersen or Dr. Fumiaki Koide. Please allow me to inform you of an initiative being taken by a former UN official who is endeavoring to have the Nuclear Security Summit take up the crucial problem. of N0.4 reactor of Fukushima. He is pursuing the establishment of an independent assessment team. I think his efforts are very significant, because it is indispensable to draw the attention of world leaders to this vital issue. I am cooperating with him, writing to some of my Korean acquaintances that this issue deserves the personal attention of President Lee Myung-bak. I have written today to Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. I asked him to consider taking the initiative of mobilizing human wisdom on the widest scope to cope with the Fukushima reactor No.4 problem, fully taking into account the above-mentioned "independent assessment team." The world has been made so fragile and vulnerable. The role of the United Nations is increasingly vital. I wish you the best of luck in your noble mission. Please accept, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the assurances of my highest consideration. Mitsuhei Murata Executive Director, the Japan Society for Global System and Ethics Who are you going to vote for - humans or destruction? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can tell a lie and I know when I do so. I responded to a question recently (see below) – do you think I lied or told the truth?
Q – Do you really believe all the end-of –world hype about Fukushima ? My response: We need some very brave heroes, some with intellect about the situation, some with creative genius for an innovative course of action, and some with altruistic heart to carry out the experiment and if it fails, yes I believe the hype. Now let me ask you fellows a question in the hopes I get the ‘truth’. Q – Are either of you learning anything of value in this thread or are you just playing a "game of cards for penny a point and no one's keepin score" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Let's talk about judgment...
|
|
I'm sure that we all judge incorrectly at times. My interest is in knowing the difference between the two. I think we respond to question and choices that we are faced with by mentally imagining the outcomes of the various actions we could take. In our imaginings we compare the probabile outcomes of the different actions we could take with knowledge that we have gained through expereince. We expect that our judgements will produce outcomes that are beneficial for achieving a goal. When we don't achieve the expected outcome it's easy to say we have misjudged or it is just as easy to say that we judged correctly but our goal was thwarted by 'circumstances beyond our control'. When we attribute failure to outside influences, without further self reflection, we condemn ourselves to making further misjudgements because the basis from which our judgement is made (our knowledg)is not questioned and corrected. Furthermore, there are times that we misjudge, but the outcome is still satisfactory. Although the good outcome occurred due to 'circumstanses beyond our control', we may fail to recognize that we had misjudged, preferring to believe instead that the base of our judgment is sound. "The fundamental attribution error!" I don't think anyone can possibly know the full extent of their misjudgments but I do think that the vast majority of people believe the bulk of all their judgements are sound and thus, the actions they have taken, based on their judgements, are correct ones. There is one category in particular, on which we base some of our judgements, that is more difficult to change than any other because we protect to the extreme. That category is the one under which our values are stored. We are more likely to base unexpected outcomes to outside influences than we are to reflect on our own value system. I would predict that the majority of our misjudgments stem from actions based on our system of values. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Any ONE there?????
|
|
I feel,not just mine but every human being's identity is bound with nation.It is obvious that people belonging to same nation are more similar with each other in more ways than with other nations people. Skin colour,physic,language,culture,habits,hobbies,passion,food habits etc. are few examples. Thank you for considering all of my questions. You have answered them thoughtfully. I quoted your last answer because because it shows how similar we all are no matter what nation we call home. I think it's more important to recognize why nationalism tends to separate us and the best way to do that is to show why nationalism tends to make us similar. No one should have to be enemies just because we love so many things about our different countries. Rather than fight others over our differences, we should all be fighing to make differences in our own countries especially about good communication and bridging cultural differences with tolerance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sun 04/01/12 02:55 PM
|
|
It is my contention that the honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. That definition in red doesn't account for multiple meaning expressions nor for an "I don't know"... The green should be sufficient. Creative, Are you saying that lies or 'determination' of lies are about communcation as in the channels through which a message is sent and received and the senders encoding, and receivers decoding of that message? In addition to my earlier comment, I'd like to add something else. Contrary to my interlocutor's opinion, which is wrong, multiple meanings are irrelevant to whether or not a speaker is answering a question dishonestly. IOW, what the questioner is asking for isn't relevant to what constitutes a dishonest answer. What is relevant is that the answer offered match up to what the answerer thinks is being asked for. Ah, now I see what all the chatter has been about. So if Joe IS alone in a room and someone walks in and saying "Are you alone" there could me multiple answers that are dependent on various thing. Joe could interpret the question as asking permission to interrupt, in that case Joe might say "yea I'm alone, what going on?" If Joe is always teasing the person who walked in about being too literal he might reconsider the first option because he would expect a silly retort like "no you're not, I'm here". So he might say "I was alone until you came in." Either of the two comments Joe makes would not be a lie, depending on his interpretation and 'expectations'. I'm sure I must be missing something, cos that's too easy. EDIT: I guess I should read all the posts before I respond to the one in the middle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my contention that the honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. That definition in red doesn't account for multiple meaning expressions nor for an "I don't know"... The green should be sufficient. Creative, Are you saying that lies or 'determination' of lies are about communcation as in the channels through which a message is sent and received and the senders encoding, and receivers decoding of that message? I am saying that a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of one's own belief. If one states "X" but but does believe "X", then one is lying. Oh ok, judging from the back & forth going on in this thread, I was sure it had to be more difficult than that. But it makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Any ONE there?????
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 03/31/12 08:13 PM
|
|
Hell,just came across a thread on here about one's love about their own nation. I saw someone therein giving many reason for why he don't love his motherland,his own nation!!That was an awful experience for me as me too belong to the same nation. I wonder how can one be so selfish & thankless when it comes to think about your own motherland! You too must be belonging to some nation,there too must be many systems that you don't like,many people those you really hate! so don't you love your nation at all? I have many questions becasue I have hard time understanding what creates nationalism (or love of the 'motherland). Maybe you can me understand. First, do you think the terms ‘motherland’ and ‘nationalism’ are the same thing? Is the motherland a ‘nation’ with a specific geographic area confined within the borders that we see on a map? If so, does it matter for how long those borders have been consistent and who decided where those borders would be? Does the term, motherland, include a cultural heritage and if so, should it matter how many cultures over what period of time have influenced the culture into which one have been born and raised? Should love of motherland, or nationalism, include specific religious beliefs and if so, should it matter how many religious beliefs exist within the motherland? If more than one religion co-exists peacefully in the motherland with equality under the laws of the land, is that something to be take pride in? Or does it matter how long the beliefs in a nation have been a consistent (unchanging) part of the overall culture of the motherland? Do you feel that your own identity (your sense of who you are) is tightly bound by certain characteristics of the nation in which you were born? If so, please explain what it is that makes you and every other person in your specific nation the same, and why do you think those things are different from people in every other nation? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread would be more interesting and perhaps simpler to resolve in another language. Let's try Latin. ficta voluptatis causa sint proxima veris (In order to please, fictions should approximate the truth) Hi Monier, interesting idea but perhaps French would be better. Latin has been a 'dead' language for a long time so in some respects a discussion of this nature might not be so encumbered with definition problems. On the other hand, French, while certainly not dead, is a controlled language. The effort of the French government was to prevent language drift that occurs through changing definitions. The idea is that communication is suppose to be more effective as people cannot fall into disagreement about what terms mean as often as with langurages that are significantly altered by sub-culture and trends. Interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Could You Do It?
|
|
I was watching a great video Inside Zero Hour about 9/11. There was a part talking about how the fighter planes were given the order to take down any planes that didn't comply. I cant imagine what just getting the order from the White House to take down a plane with hundreds of innocent men, women and children in an effort to save thousands. I can't imagine having to actually go through with it. Yea sure they are trained to go after and take out the enemy but to kill the people they took an oath to protect? I don't think I could do it, could you? What makes the action you've described any different than the actions that have taken the lives of civilians in the Middle East? Most of those lives were taken by the same kind of religious idiots that flew the 9/11 planes... Sure our soldiers have caused a few civilians to die... Yet a sucide bomber TARGETS civilians as a matter of course (so that terror keeps their masters from being ripped limb from limb by the victims). We've been there for 10 years, and by your reconning ""our soldiers have caused a few civilians to die..."". Perhaps you need to catch up, or maybe broaden the scope of media you read. They have done more good then harm. Sure a few civilians get killed but it's better for a few to die then thousands or millions. It is just an order that would break me. Oh, and by what sources and whose accounting do you attribute your responce? In other words, what is the good accomplished vs the harm according to your sources? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Could You Do It?
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 03/31/12 06:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Could You Do It?
|
|
I was watching a great video Inside Zero Hour about 9/11. There was a part talking about how the fighter planes were given the order to take down any planes that didn't comply. I cant imagine what just getting the order from the White House to take down a plane with hundreds of innocent men, women and children in an effort to save thousands. I can't imagine having to actually go through with it. Yea sure they are trained to go after and take out the enemy but to kill the people they took an oath to protect? I don't think I could do it, could you? What makes the action you've described any different than the actions that have taken the lives of civilians in the Middle East? Most of those lives were taken by the same kind of religious idiots that flew the 9/11 planes... Sure our soldiers have caused a few civilians to die... Yet a sucide bomber TARGETS civilians as a matter of course (so that terror keeps their masters from being ripped limb from limb by the victims). We've been there for 10 years, and by your reconning ""our soldiers have caused a few civilians to die..."". Perhaps you need to catch up, or maybe broaden the scope of media you read. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my contention that the honesty of testimony is solely determined by whether or not the speaker believes what they're saying. An honest answer to a question is determined by what the listener thinks that the speaker is asking for, in addition to whether or not the listener offers an answer that they believe captures that. That definition in red doesn't account for multiple meaning expressions nor for an "I don't know"... The green should be sufficient. Creative, Are you saying that lies or 'determination' of lies are about communcation as in the channels through which a message is sent and received and the senders encoding, and receivers decoding of that message? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Could You Do It?
|
|
I was watching a great video Inside Zero Hour about 9/11. There was a part talking about how the fighter planes were given the order to take down any planes that didn't comply. I cant imagine what just getting the order from the White House to take down a plane with hundreds of innocent men, women and children in an effort to save thousands. I can't imagine having to actually go through with it. Yea sure they are trained to go after and take out the enemy but to kill the people they took an oath to protect? I don't think I could do it, could you? What makes the action you've described any different than the actions that have taken the lives of civilians in the Middle East? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
Speaking to the original topic:
I think the term “Recovering from Religion” when applied to individuals who are suffering from the effects of cognitive dissonance is a relevant one. Cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual experiences discomfort or anxiety as new information comes into conflict with current beliefs. An individual might resolve the discomfort in different ways: choosing one belief over another - by modifying the current beliefs – resisting any new information that causes dissonance, or by continuing to seek fuller knowledge and confirmation within a peer group. The latter solution (in bold) could be called the “Recovering from Religion” solution. Like any other group, including the group through which the religious beliefs where originally conferred, the new group becomes the group of peers that lend confirmation to new or developing beliefs. It’s a social psychological phenomena backed by a great deal of research and has led to the development of every kind of help group one can imagine. People get together, share their own experiences, exchange information, and support each other as individuals come to terms with reality or shape new or re-shape past values. There can be varying degrees of change and not everyone is going to walk away from the experience as an atheist, but those who have experienced a high level of cognitive dissonance between religious beliefs and other information, are more likely to, at least, become skeptical or may settle (be comfortable) with some form of agnosticism. In terms of religious ‘upbringing’, I think there is quite a difference between a ‘recovery’ group and the group in which a child develops the religious beliefs. The relationships between the individual and the two groups are completely different in emotional attachment, in authority, and in open mindedness. Furthermore, an adult has a greater capacity to understand their own abilities, cognitively and intellectually, and will assert their own authority in choosing new found information as a souse of knowledge, rather than having a total reliance on the authority figures of their childhood. What an individual is actually seeking through the group affiliation is confirmation of their dissonance, and support in accepting information which conflicts with their current belief system. The first beliefs are more a matter of indoctrination, while changes in beliefs are more a matter of facing new information with an open mind. To open the mind might simply require a supportive peer group. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
