Just stop the useless complaining.
POSTED BY: LostInTheVerse
UPDATED: Thursday, November 25, 2004 04:27
VIEWED: 24129
PAGE 1 of 2
Hooray for all you melodramatic pricks! Your bitching about how "I'm moving to Canada so I can run away from my Country's problems and live with a bunch of French Communists" and "Oh no! 4 of more years of George Bush as President means Armageddon! It's the end of days! Everyone must sacrifice their firstborn son! Repent or burn, all ye heathens!" has been quite entertaining. But, stop. That's it. Just stop. It's useless. It's annoying. If the President does anything to piss you off that much, arrange a peaceful gathering to protest whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. Write to your Representative and your Senator about it. Work to vote down everything the man tries to do. It'll be more fulfilling, more productive, and more respectable than crying yourself to sleep every night over something you very much have control of. Seriously people, it's not cute anymore. Quit your bitching and do something about it.
That's it. I'm fed up. You all have seen my posts, you know I'm typically very gracious and try to only discuss positions and issues, but I'm just tired of having my intellect and personality come into question based on how I vote. I'm tired of all this useless complaining. If you want to discuss issues and our positions on them, great. If you want to discuss possible solutions for problems, even better. If all you have to say is "Anyone who voted for Bush is a moron." or "That's it, I'm moving to Canada.", don't. Unless you want help packing your bags, in which case just ask and I'll see what I can do.
If you aren't one of the people that the above rant refers to, I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Just one (angry) man's opinion. Do what you will with it.
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I 100% agree. First off, I haven't actually heard of anyone who really left for Canada. It's all just talk. Second, how would that solve a darn thing? It would just mean that next election your voice won't be heard cause you won't be voting. Running away from a problem is hardly a solution. The world isn't coming to an end. I promise.
You still have your freedom of speech. This is just a plee to use it constructively rather than just to annoy everyone. Go out and try to fix the problems if you believe in what you say.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
Hooray for all you melodramatic pricks! Your bitching about how "I'm moving to Canada so I can run away from my Country's problems and live with a bunch of French Communists"
Cute.
Quote:
and "Oh no! 4 of more years of George Bush as President means Armageddon! It's the end of days! Everyone must sacrifice their firstborn son! Repent or burn, all ye heathens!" has been quite entertaining. But, stop. That's it. Just stop. It's useless. It's annoying.
So sorry opinions upset you.
Quote:
If the President does anything to piss you off that much, arrange a peaceful gathering to protest whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want.
You mean like the protest against the Invasion of Iraq? The protest where police beat and jailed people illegally. The protest that was the largest in planetary history? A protest joined by concerned people all over the world?
The protest ignored by America?
Quote:
Write to your Representative and your Senator about it. Work to vote down everything the man tries to do. It'll be more fulfilling, more productive, and more respectable than crying yourself to sleep every night over something you very much have control of. Seriously people, it's not cute anymore. Quit your bitching and do something about it.
That's it. I'm fed up. You all have seen my posts, you know I'm typically very gracious and try to only discuss positions and issues, but I'm just tired of having my intellect and personality come into question based on how I vote.
I'm tired of all this useless complaining. If you want to discuss issues and our positions on them, great. If you want to discuss possible solutions for problems, even better. If all you have to say is "Anyone who voted for Bush is a moron." or "That's it, I'm moving to Canada.", don't. Unless you want help packing your bags, in which case just ask and I'll see what I can do.
If you aren't one of the people that the above rant refers to, I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Just one (angry) man's opinion. Do what you will with it.
People have been doing something about it for years only to be ignored, beaten, jailed, and had thier human rights taken from them. America is not a place one can protest safely, the police will arrest you if you are even a member of a group known to protest. If you are simply Arab you are problably on a terrorist list. Thousands are held right now, and for years, without any representation or even a chance to see loved ones.
If you think writing a letter will help I can't but think you believe America isn't the fascist state it is. The law of the land has changed in America and it's not catching terrorists... it's catching Americans.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoa! nothing that you have done and can ever do is going to change anything? I guess it's time to just go ahead and dig your own grave and shoot yourselves.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is not useless complaining. It is frustrated venting due to impotent rage over being marginalized by our government.
No matter what has been said or done to DO SOMETHING - there has always been a 'spin' put on it. Anybody can make statistics dance. Trick is – to look at ALL the data. From the stats you trust all the way to the stats made by your sworn enemy. A different picture emerges, much different that either side of the teeter-totter would want you to know. To get balance – the governing body must WANT balance. But nobody wants to lose power. Power corrupts, etc …
We concerned Americans are in a quandary: Do we accept the loss of freedoms and find ourselves learning a new salute and a funky way of marching...
OR
Do we find others means to protest - in a country that now overwhelmingly states that protests are traitorous acts and our freedoms are stripped for our 'safety'...
OR
Do we bog off and be come an expatriate and hope the rest of the world remembers the lessons learned from WW2.
Let the folks vent – if you don’t like the threads – DON’T Read Them. They are not like pop-up ads… it is not truly “In Your Face”. Allow others to have the freedom of speech. I am not saying don’t put up a thread like this, because you are venting your frustration too. Just remember to allow others to do the same.
Sigh - sorry, I am a tad tetchy right now.
"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I almost entirely agree with Lostintheverse's post.
However, due to comical uncertainty as to whether my work computer will allow me to post, I shall do this little missive and follow up with a chunk of thought.
Cheers,
Pete
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CapnRahn:
I agree with your post, to an extent. I never said it should be illegal to complain, it shouldn't be. People are allowed to complain as much as they want. It'd just be less annoying to me if they did it in a productive manner.
If you feel marginalized volunteer for a campaign somewhere, maybe run for public office. Get your views out there. Start a productive organization to combat one or two or ten of the wrongs on your list. There are myriad ways to demarginalize oneself.
If anyone were to suggest that somebody shouldn't be allowed to say something, I would fight them tooth and nail in a heartbeat.
Ghoulman:
I understand your point of view. I disagree with it. I don't see this country as fascist.
I voted for Bush this time around. If you think that makes my hands blue, so be it.
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, I DO BOTH. I vote, write to my Senators and Representative, write to the newapapers, comment directly to the FCC, Justice Department or wherever during public comment periods. I donate rather large sums of money to the causes of my choice. I work in a field that I believe does society some good (air pollution control) in ways that actually help business. I don't demonstrate (because it usually doesn't get any results) but I DO discuss issues... mostly in a rational manner.
I also bitch because, well, I'm scared. I've run into about a half-dozen Bush supporters on this board who no longer have a viewpoint because in order to have a viewpoint, you actually have a view. In other words, you actually have to be looking at something- able to take in and accept what the evidence of their senses tells them- and they're so far out of the real world that they're scary. People STILL think that Saddam had WMD in 2003. People STILL think that Saddam suported ObL. People are absolutely convinced that we are the good guys, even if our death toll tops Saddam's. And I think that is indicative of Bush, his Administration, and many (not all) of his supporters.
I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone in a rational manner, but when people point to lack of evidence as evidence, then reality has clearly gone out the window.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can understand a high degree of upset - after all some people believe that this election is the most significant in a long while - amongst the democrats, and therefore I'd cut them a little slack for their grief over the following week or two.
After that, I'd club them to death with a cricket bat. Or something. Stiff upper lips all round, folks! It's the British way!
Lostintheverse is right, word without deed is useless. You have to fight to make your views heard, it's no use just complaining idly, then running out when election time comes and complaining that you're robbed - you have to force the people on high, and the community, to take notice of you through action.
No, not custard pie terrorism (Mmmm, custard pie terrorism) but by assessing each Republic proposal and policy that you care about and letting your voice be heard over it. With placards. With letters. With votes. With boycotts.
Hate mega-corporations like Fox and Esso and Coca-cola? Boycott them as much as is practical (sadly difficult to escape accidently giving them money - my main arguement against how the US is going) and spread information about their doings! Hit 'em where it hurts, with information and badmouthing and protesting! Leave flyers as to obvious injustices (and they have to be obvious, people can take a lot of crap from corporations)
Refuse to listen to Clearwater and write letters etc. as to how you find their clear bias intolerable. Promote the few remaining independant alternatives.
Lobby your local political figures, but politely and with well researched facts and good grammar. Nothing makes a politician play basketball with your letter and a bin faster than an angry rant.
Gather. And protest. In public places. If the police try to move you on, obey, unless you are in a public park or plaza. Then sit down. If they try to move you on by force take photos and notes (maybe the officer's badge number), and try to get back later.
Politeness is everything, even when you are fighting for what you believe in. A land of hate and bile and shouts and taunts and arrogance and ignorance is not a land that cares for democracy.
IF someone states an arguement that you do not agree with, research their arguement and then respond to it politely. Try to strike up a discourse. If they rant at you, offer them the same reasoned arguement. If they rant at you again, either shake your head sadly in word or person - or punch them in the gut for lack of respect and manners. (Punching reliant on appropriate weight ratio)
The only way we can change the world to make it a better place, sans use of force, is by treating each other like humans and monopolies as entities to be mistrusted and tolerated at best.
Saying that Bush is an idiot helps no one. It has been said before. Find something you care about that Bush is embroiled in (Enron? Gay rights?) and fight!
Calling Kerry a flip flopper and a commie is laughable now. Calling Democrat's wimps and bleeding heart liberals is boorish and against democratic principle. Discuss things. Respect opinions. Check to see if you are indeed as right as you believed on a matter.
Conspiracy theories from questionable sources won't convince anyone. Using data gathered by the UN/Amnesty internation and the Red Cross will. Using data from AP and Reuters and independant broadsheets will.
The radio and television are useless for balanced information.
Democrats - question your party.
Republicans - question your party.
On no account lamblast Republican's for their choice! You want them to change their vote next time, you're going to have to convince them with FACT, nicely, and without rancour.
And please don't solely post political stuff here. It does my head in.
To those outside America, (like me) the only way you can count is by occassionally flicking fact towards our American cousins/friends and pressurising our leaders to side for/against Bush on foreign policy.
Play nice people. Keep Fireflyfans.net 85% politics free.
Thanks for listening to me blather.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pete: Thing is -- yes, I have done all that and so have millions of others. To no avail. Fear is running rampant and the 'bad guys' are using it to its full extent.
So, by voting for Bush, I take it you agree in full with the Patriot Act.
And no, your hands are not 'ones of blue' - I just cannot see your perspective.
USA is mired in one of the worst times in our history.
Is that deniable? "Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are two big problems in ther United States that prevent rational discussion, one that most other devloped nations don't have and can't possibly comprehend from a distance.
The first is the media. Our media has been completely supine because its owned by big corporations, and George has promised them that they can get even bigger. In the past four years, there have been major scandals in the Bush administration and Republican policy - the energy trading deregulation that gave us Enron, torture at Abu Ghraib, the complete f*ck-up in Iraq, the outing of Valerie Plame (treason) and the fact that Bush was dragged kicking and screaming before the 9/11 commission. Each scandal got, oh, say 2 days to 2 weeks in the press.
Now, HOW MANY days/ weeks/ months did we hear about Monica Lewinsky??
The other is religion, and I vote that be our post-election topic. The USA is the most religious developed nation. Quite frankly, I have a problem with religion. I see no difference between one invisible being and another, whether it be Jesus or a six-foot white rabbit named Harvey. Religious people who believe that god has spoken to them are no longer looking at the real world. They deny the evidence (or lack of evidence) of their senses and insist that something is there that they can't point to. They stop asking questions with open-ended answers. It's just a short step from "believing" in god to "believing" in WMD, and once you get to that point, rational discussion is no longer possible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have the solution. Cause all the liberals to be killed via abortions by whores of mothers that brought them kicking and screaming from the womb. Then we don't have to listen to the whining and gnashing of teeth. They have two choices here. They can accept what the MAJORITY of the people have spoken for, and work WITH the system to make this country a better place, or they can cry in the wilderness, pulling out hair, smearing ashes in their clothes and on their face, and many other classical episodes of mourning. It seems rather thatn work, they'd rather cry and bitch and moan. They wanted a liberal president so they wouldn't actually have to do any work themselves, after all. So whine and gnash and moan and bitch. Just don't be surprised when I shoot you in the face for it. You were warned.
Me for Emperor of America in '08
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gray Jedi: 5 words - Popular Vote VS Electorial College.
Majority does NOT necessarily rule ...
EDIT
Fine scarcasm there - it will surely pull together the factions here! "Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
They wanted a liberal president so they wouldn't actually have to do any work themselves, after all. So whine and gnash and moan and bitch. Just don't be surprised when I shoot you in the face for it. You were warned.
And we see here one of those pod-people with whom rational discussion is not possible. Thank you for providing this example. I'm going to cross post this (and examples from the rest of you- and you know who you are) to every conservative who complains about how "liberals" are so mean-spirited.
BTW, you DID just threaten a whole bunch of people, you know.
Yeah, let the healing begin. NOT WITH YOU. I'm going to take the advice of that wise old philosopher- never get mad...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, but this time around, Rahn, Bush has both the popular and electoral majority.
And SignyM, I never said liberals were mean-spirited. I'm a bastard, an asshole of the highest order. Mine is a reactionary assedness. If people are going to sit and cry and gnash about something that's done, finished and out of their hands, then they need to leave. Worry about the things you can do something about. Like that whole writing to your congressmen and congresswomen. Voting at every given opportunity for those who better fit your ideals. I can be reasoned with. Did you even bother to read the open letter I wrote about the election in my blog? I'd rather be reasonable. But all your particular kind of knee-jerk liberal wants is a fight. Well, here it is, in all it's evil, money-grubbing. hand-wringing, back door dealing, hate everyone but white conservative men glory. So bring it on, ya commie pinko leftist hippy fag.
PS - troll troll troll troll troll
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I respectfully suggest that we no longer respond to the GreyJedi.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I DO BOTH. I vote, write to my Senators and Representative, write to the newapapers, comment directly to the FCC, Justice Department or wherever during public comment periods. I donate rather large sums of money to the causes of my choice. I work in a field that I believe does society some good (air pollution control) in ways that actually help business. I don't demonstrate (because it usually doesn't get any results) but I DO discuss issues... mostly in a rational manner.
I also bitch because, well, I'm scared. I've run into about a half-dozen Bush supporters on this board who no longer have a viewpoint because in order to have a viewpoint, you actually have a view. In other words, you actually have to be looking at something- able to take in and accept what the evidence of their senses tells them- and they're so far out of the real world that they're scary. People STILL think that Saddam had WMD in 2003. People STILL think that Saddam suported ObL. People are absolutely convinced that we are the good guys, even if our death toll tops Saddam's. And I think that is indicative of Bush, his Administration, and many (not all) of his supporters.
I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone in a rational manner, but when people pointing to lack of evidence as evidence, then reality has clearly gone out the window.
Doesn't anyone else see the irony here?
"People STILL think that Saddam had WMD in 2003."
"people pointing to lack of evidence as evidence, then reality has clearly gone out the window."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not sure I get your point? What's the irony? When someone says the fact that no WMD were found proves that Saddam had them... how does one proceed?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Whoa! nothing that you have done and can ever do is going to change anything? I guess it's time to just go ahead and dig your own grave and shoot yourselves.
You first.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jasonzz, thank you for another shiny example of Bush-suporter rationality and reasonableness. This is another candidate for cross-posting. I don't like being threatened, or told to commit suicide.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
Well, here it is, in all it's evil, money-grubbing. hand-wringing, back door dealing, hate everyone but white conservative men glory. So bring it on, ya commie pinko leftist hippy fag.
AWESOME ROFLMFAO!!!!
Obviously folks don't have a sense fo your humor GreyJedi.
PS: This election made me so much money just in Kleenex Stock!!! HOOHAH.. Thank You Dems! I shal drink a Black and Tan in your honor.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are two big problems in ther United States that prevent rational discussion, one that most other devloped nations don't have and can't possibly comprehend from a distance.
The first is the media. Our media has been completely supine because its owned by big corporations, and George has promised them that they can get even bigger. In the past four years, there have been major scandals in the Bush administration and Republican policy - the energy trading deregulation that gave us Enron, torture at Abu Ghraib, the complete f*ck-up in Iraq, the outing of Valerie Plame (treason) and the fact that Bush was dragged kicking and screaming before the 9/11 commission. Each scandal got, oh, say 2 days to 2 weeks in the press.
Now, HOW MANY days/ weeks/ months did we hear about Monica Lewinsky??
The other is religion, and I vote that be our post-election topic. The USA is the most religious developed nation. Quite frankly, I have a problem with religion. I see no difference between one invisible being and another, whether it be Jesus or a six-foot white rabbit named Harvey. Religious people who believe that god has spoken to them are no longer looking at the real world. They deny the evidence (or lack of evidence) of their senses and insist that something is there that they can't point to. They stop asking questions with open-ended answers. It's just a short step from "believing" in god to "believing" in WMD, and once you get to that point, rational discussion is no longer possible.
The media is controlled by the laws of economics. I would argue that those things didn't make the news because *people* really don't care about it. Enron hearings, 9/11 hearings and so on arn't really news. Americans like sex scandals and celebrity trials. I know Martha Stewart has stolen eggs and crab apples while in jail because American LOVES to see rich people fall. Average Joes or Ahmids? Not a care.
As for religion:
You would be surprized how much of what you "know" as real is actually taken on faith. Science is a belief system. There are thousands of "facts" we know only because they were indoctrinated into us as children. They might all be "provable" but how many have actually been proven to you and how many did you take on faith that your teacher wasn't lying to you? Finally on the point of "provable" using a scientific method to prove science should be no more valid than using a spiritual method to prove reality.
And on a closing thought:
They rabbit is gray, his name is Frank and he told me the world was going to end. (I'm a Donnie Darko fan)
-----
As for the original post:
I agree 100% that the ad homin attacks must stop. If your guy lost, that is no excuse to personally attack the people who do not share your views.
-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are two big problems in ther United States that prevent rational discussion, one that most other devloped nations don't have and can't possibly comprehend from a distance.
The first is the media...
The other is religion, and I vote that be our post-election topic.
So start a thread. I already broke my promise to Daddy by arguing about politics, so I might as well hit religion too, although I feel it'll be more about politics anyway. I have some ideas about religion and politics, and politics as religion that you'll probably not like.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
... just to interject. 
Religion is based on faith (in a belief system) without proof.
Science is based on proof to support faith (in a theory).
The difference with science is that when the proof changes, so does the faith.
Religions never change.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're talking to someone who is a scientist and has a smattering of philosophy. If we were to discuss this at length, we would eventually get to our "a priori" assumptions. My a priori assumptions are:
There is a real world.
We are connected to it through our senses.
What are yours?
As for science: Science is not a collection of "facts", it is a process of asking questions and testing the answers. Religion, however, does not put it's answers to the test. Science has allowed us to design an electric light switch that works most of the time. I can't say the same thing about religion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jasonzz, thank you for another shiny example of Bush-suporter rationality and reasonableness. This is another candidate for cross-posting. I don't like being threatened, or told to commit suicide.
hey whatever. label me whatever you need to if it gets you past you faking your way thru your support group. I stated my opinion and response to the completely self-defeating fatalistic viewpoints illustrated before where upon "nothing that has ever been done and nothing that ever can be done will affect any change" along with an extreme hyperpole to what must be the naturally extended conclusion.
oooooh, I am so scared of you cross-posting me. Look, if you can't stand on your own 2 feet and have a good rational discussion. If you can't understand the juxtaposition of humour along with the dopey idiotic self-defeating fatalistic spew that's been going on. Then I suppose you do need to inform your support group of "look, what mean people there are out there.! "
But when you are all done, and you feel all better about yourselves. You've dried your tears and had a nice warm meal or two along with a good night of rest. I am all ears of constructive talk and how we can make this whole thing work.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The usual trio of verbotten subjects is politics, religion, and sex. Sex is boring. We need a third verbotten topic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Obviously folks don't have a sense of your humor GreyJedi
Oh, really? I thought I was being threatened. It's called "assault". It might even be called "terrorist threat", I don't know. I was going to ask Haken to ID TheGreyJedi so I could let the FBI sort out this particular use of the internet.
HAHAHA!. JUST KIDDING!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I take it you didn't care for my joke? Hey I was just making a point- don't get your shorts in a knot. The point is that threats are not part of a rational discussion. When you feel ready to discuss, let's talk.
BTW, I WAS blown in to the FBI from another bbx because I just kept PREDICTING stuff that was going to happen. (There's that scientific bent in me that tells me that a hypothesis isn't any good unless you can predict things ahead of time. And since I kept predicting things, I assume my hypotheses were good. Look what it got me- SHEESH!!)
All they do is follow you around for a couple of days. And when they find your life is as boring as sh*t and you aren't a threat- they stop!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only irony I find here SignyM is that these Right Wing Bushites are so insecure in thier "victory" they feel a need to stop any criticism.
After all, why tell people to stop complaining? Isn't this America? It's the land of bitching! That's what makes America great... constant bitching.
If Americans stop bitching the world is doomed. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes! I'm a Republican Terorist! Bring it on, commie pinko leftist hippy fudge-packer! I'm going to drive my car into your living room! Then kick your dog! Also, your mom wanted me to let you know that you'll never be as good as your dad in the sack and you should really quite trying.
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, I'm a mean son of a bitch.
Troll.
Troll troll.
Troll troll troll.
Troll.
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ghoulman- hahahaha!! Indeed, the land of constant bitching! After all, if the colonists hadn't bitched about King George, we'd still be under a monarchy!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ghoulman- hahahaha!! Indeed, the land of constant bitching! After all, if the colonists hadn't bitched about King George, we'd still be under a monarchy!
Except that they never ones thought that the moaning and groaning was worthwhile, turned their useless bitching into action and did something about it. They went and build something better.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ghoulman- hahahaha!! Indeed, the land of constant bitching! After all, if the colonists hadn't bitched about King George, we'd still be under a monarchy!
Except that they never ones thought that turned their useless bitching into action and they did something about it. They went and build something better.
Um, Jasonzzz, is English not your first language? I can't make out what you're trying to say. Maybe if you wrote it in the original Slow Mutantese, then SignyM or Ghoulman, whom I've seen to be fluent in Slow Mutant, can translate for us.
And long live King George. Republics are a failed experiment. We will all see so in time. They never last.
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ghoulman: I'm not saying don't criticize. I'm saying don't whine. Criticism is a good thing, especially when it's backed up by facts and research.
Signym: Yeah then they actually did something about it. They didn't just sit down crying and making each others ears bleed.
I'd have written a thread about degenerate name-calling, but if I try to stop the whining and the name-calling there'd be no fun left in modern society .
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's this blog. It's written by a moderate Democrat who was an avid Kerry supporter, and hated Bush with all the fires of the seven hells. Read what he had to say about it:
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/
Quote:
1. If you're depressed about the election, well, you have cause. Take the rest of the week to be depressed. Heck, take the weekend.
2. Anyone still paralyzed by liberal depression at midnight, Monday November 8 will be summarily brained with a plank. There's too much to do to tolerate your whiny, ineffectual ass after that point.
You either lie down or you stand up.
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
huh?
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
Hooray for all you melodramatic pricks! Your bitching about how "I'm moving to Canada so I can run away from my Country's problems and live with a bunch of French Communists" and "Oh no! 4 of more years of George Bush as President means Armageddon! It's the end of days! Everyone must sacrifice their firstborn son! Repent or burn, all ye heathens!" has been quite entertaining. But, stop. That's it. Just stop. It's useless. It's annoying. If the President does anything to piss you off that much, arrange a peaceful gathering to protest whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. Write to your Representative and your Senator about it. Work to vote down everything the man tries to do. It'll be more fulfilling, more productive, and more respectable than crying yourself to sleep every night over something you very much have control of. Seriously people, it's not cute anymore. Quit your bitching and do something about it.
That's it. I'm fed up. You all have seen my posts, you know I'm typically very gracious and try to only discuss positions and issues, but I'm just tired of having my intellect and personality come into question based on how I vote. I'm tired of all this useless complaining. If you want to discuss issues and our positions on them, great. If you want to discuss possible solutions for problems, even better. If all you have to say is "Anyone who voted for Bush is a moron." or "That's it, I'm moving to Canada.", don't. Unless you want help packing your bags, in which case just ask and I'll see what I can do.
If you aren't one of the people that the above rant refers to, I'm sorry for wasting your time.
Just one (angry) man's opinion. Do what you will with it.
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
Since you support whats going on so much why don't you stop your complaining and join up to fight in Iraq!!
I think every Bush supporter should really show their support and join the Miltary that way the rest of us who don't won't have to worry about a draft!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
I 100% agree. First off, I haven't actually heard of anyone who really left for Canada. It's all just talk. Second, how would that solve a darn thing? It would just mean that next election your voice won't be heard cause you won't be voting. Running away from a problem is hardly a solution. The world isn't coming to an end. I promise.
You still have your freedom of speech. This is just a plee to use it constructively rather than just to annoy everyone. Go out and try to fix the problems if you believe in what you say.
I honestly don't think our vote counts at least not as long as they are using those debolt computer machines...
I'm pretty sure this election was stolen sad thing is it can't be proven because those computers don't leave a paper trail how convient
also I don't plan on going to Canada unless I absolutely feel I don't have anyother choice, I would just like to keep my options open
America is on its way to being a Facist nation under this administration...
I want to be like the smart jews in Germany who saw what was happening and got out ..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Words that scare the majority of sheep er ... populace - "VIVE LA REVOLUTION!!!"
{*pray ignore my inability to spell in French.} "Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm not sure I get your point? What's the irony? When someone says the fact that no WMD were found proves that Saddam had them... how does one proceed?
Wow after putting both quotes right next to each other you still couldn't figure it out. It doesn't take much of a jump from there.
"There were NO WMDs in Iraq in 2003."
"Where's your proof."
"The lack of evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq in 2003!!"
And before you try, you can never prove something didn't exist.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Since you support whats going on so much why don't you stop your complaining and join up to fight in Iraq!!
I think every Bush supporter should really show their support and join the Miltary that way the rest of us who don't won't have to worry about a draft!!
Yes, because that way, only Republicans die in battle while the wussy doves stay at home?
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, yes, I know... "Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence." It was used quite a bit during the mad cow scare. And theoretically you can't prove the non-existance of something. But somewhere along the line you have to cut off insistence on mathematical certainty and go with the preponderance of evidence... especially if you're proposing to spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives to chase it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hullo, Capnrahn!
I didn't actually vote for anyone, I live in the UK - but I consider myself informed and read constantly, and have American friends (mainly Republicans, frustratingly).
Bush's measures that I have opposed:
Patriot act
Iraq war
Stance on gay unions
Stance on right to choose abortion
Monopolies
Kyoto agreement
Tax cuts
Heavy borrowing
Failure to implement peace process and censure Sharon
His stance on social security and free health care
Enviroment
'Jobs for the boys'
Squandering sympathy from other nations post 9/11 in diplomatic petulance
'Appropriate interrogation techniques'
Legal limbo in Guantanamo bay
Lack of planning for occupation of Iraq
Neocon presence in cabinet - Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz who were thoroughly discredited within the CIA during the Cold War for their hyping of threats
Cynical rigging of supreme court
Use of fear to win votes
Possibly a few more.
Approve:
Tough stance on Zimbabwe over Mugabe's rigging
Generally adept stance currently as to North Korea and Africa diplomatically
Effective campaign in Afghanistan, considering the terrain and character
There you go. I am dead against Bush. I have reset my anger factor and am hearby judging him afresh from this election. So my head does not explode from 'Argh!'
And yes, I think the US is mired in one of its darkest days. But if you're sticking to the tools of democracy you have no option but to RAGE in quiet determination until the people are convinced. And if that fails. And the USA no longer speaks for you states and her people.
Break off and form a new nation - peacefully if at all possible (ha! the way the world is going...). I'm deadly serious. But democracy deserves every tool. You're fighting television and radio and an arrogant government and a point of view you cannot reconcile with... you have to give it total conviction with a strong, strong leader who is proud of his liberal values. A kick-ass liberal.
I'm veering dangerously towards political polemic here again, and I recognise you feel things are hopeless. Try again, with everything you have, I beg you. You owe your cause, that. If it fails again and again over the coming decade, then take your rightful portion of the media by force.
If it still fails then the US is lost to a one-party system, and it is the weakness and fear of the people to blame - and you will have to seccede.
Cheers, and you have my sympathies, but anger and jibes directed at Republican voters will never work. You have to be cool-headed and cut them out with logic and passion from creditable sources.
The above are in my belief apocalyptic scenarios, but appropriate responses. I much doubt that it will get THAT bad. But you have to fight, and *ugh* win the hearts and minds of those blinded by religion and party-fervour.
In sympathy,
Pete
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"All they do is follow you around for a couple of days. And when they find your life is as boring as sh*t and you aren't a threat- they stop!" - SignyM
You fool! Why didn't you put Firefly on TV in constant rotation while you were under surveilance? Or walk up to your garbage bin very suspiciously, place a white box BEHIND it, glance around in a dodgy manner and creep back inside?
Only for the FBI men to snatch it, run back to HQ, and to find what?
A shiny Firefly DVD box set of course!
Never pass up an opportunity for conversion, matey!
Pete
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OH DAMN!!! You're right Pete, I missed a shiny opportunity! Can you see them now- inspecting the DVD backwards and forwards, looking for the hidden message?
What was I thinking?????
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
Well, here it is, in all it's evil, money-grubbing. hand-wringing, back door dealing, hate everyone but white conservative men glory. So bring it on, ya commie pinko leftist hippy fag.
AWESOME ROFLMFAO!!!!
Obviously folks don't have a sense fo your humor GreyJedi.
PS: This election made me so much money just in Kleenex Stock!!! HOOHAH.. Thank You Dems! I shal drink a Black and Tan in your honor.
Hullo, Connorflynn.
I have a sense of humour. I have one of the darkest senses of humour around. I watch and ENJOY Chris Morris for God's sake, and he is utterly twisted. The only comedian who can make jokes out of child murder and make a point.
But the trouble is, both your's and Greyjedi's comments don't come across as harmless jokes. They come across as something I cannot abide: Gloating. And lack of respect.
I'm proud to call myself a liberal. My grandmother was a conservative, my grandad was a communist (until invasion of Poland and it all sounds unlikely, but, y'know, only in Britain) and I've inherited beliefs from both. Calling me a fag, or a pinko (what the hell is a pinko anyway, it's catchy, but what is it?) or a hippy, or a commie is automatically voiding my arguements and beliefs solely because you view them as leftist.
Sometimes left wing ideas work. Sometimes right wing ideas work. I hate and despise doubletalk. Read 1984?
"Hate Goldstein! Love Big Brother!" and the two minutes hate?
That's short hand for "Hate liberals, love Republicans!" Or vice versa.
I'm going to keep on being reasonable about this, until I have to march over there and force feed you my bloody fist until you all get THIS: to write shorthand in politics is to polarise - to polarise is to hate - to hate is to take sides - once the media have taken one side there is one voice and one party system.
TO IGNORE THE VOICES OF OTHERS IS TO HAVE A ONE PARTY MIND.
And that state of being fills me with contempt.
Chat away, I shall amuse myself with these pornagraphic playing cards.
Pete
(Vote for Quimby. If you mayor he'd vote for you.)
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
TheGreyJedi: BTW - Yer a nearsighted, smeg swilling, yak piss drinkin'. rabid fornicator of household appliances, scabby bald Lemur. I wave my privates at yer aunties!
apologies to - the nearsighted, swillers of smeg, yak brew imbibers, Menage'a'appliance enthusiasts, Lemurs with excessive skin conditions and Aunts who have been traumatized by flashers. OH yes, and to Monty Python - for lifting a line! 
from that 'special hell' "Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Since you support whats going on so much why don't you stop your complaining and join up to fight in Iraq!!
I think every Bush supporter should really show their support and join the Miltary that way the rest of us who don't won't have to worry about a draft!!
Bit unfair, why should he be? That's what the army's for, to fight for the policy of the government, in the name of the people. They're there so we don't have to be. That is their sacrifice. To support a war is no sin if you believe it just and can be managed with morality intact, but make damn sure your reasons are honest and that you are not corrupted in doing so. I respect the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, though I feel that they have been badly served in peacekeeper training and direction post-war.
Though, of course, they shouldn't BE there in Iraq, but that is besides the point for this reply. I was in favour of Afghanistan being invaded, but I'd be a fool to sign up because of that view. Why? Because there was an army ready to do the job. If another Hitler threatened my country, then I'd sign up. (Or be drafted, a bit more likely.)
So, anyway, don't pick on Lostintheverse on that score!
And Greyjedi? Liberals died in Spain in the 30's without hope of victory, as did socialists in Russia faced with death, as are liberal soldiers in the UK forces today and in other countries serving in Iraq who are not conservatives. The left can be willing to die for a cause, or for country, but not for something they feel unjust.
Gngh. I'm being so evenhanded I'm beginning to make even myself sick. I'm off!
Pete
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:
TheGreyJedi: BTW - Yer a nearsighted, smeg swilling, yak piss drinkin'. rabid fornicator of household appliances, scabby bald Lemur.
apologies to - the nearsighted, swillers of smeg, yak brew imbibers, Menage'a'appliance enthusiasts, Lemurs with excessive skin conditions and Aunts who have been traumatized by flashers. OH yes, and to Monty Python - for lifting a line!
*Bops Capnrahn on head with stiff cardboard tube out of sense of principle, but respects comical and original over-the-top surreal delivery. Bad lad! Stop!*
This is an example of...
*Sigh*
*Retreats to watch exciting fight because he can't be bothered. And he's wondering why he cares so much about people debating on the net. And he realises that it's because he's tired and he hasn't let go yet. And he believes that there's still hope out there. And now he's realising that he's probably wrong, and that people will always be arrogant and arsey, and that arrogance is ignorance grown up, and that he can no longer tell between playful jape and dangerous trivialisation in posts, and he wonders if it's because something is wrong with him, or he's just tired, and that maybe he's a fool for believing in stating his principles when a foreign land dismisses him, and then he knows that he feels beaten and that he still wants to stand up - and now he feels that he has to go and read some Calvin & Hobbes and forget.
*Sigh*
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't go through this whole thread, but to answer the original missive: NO
I might suggest that you follow your own advice however, because whining about my complaints is really quite useless. Unless you're trying to egg me on that is.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Won't go and read all the posts, but I have one thing to say.
If you're not happy with the way our government is run. Tough. The people have spoken. Bush won. Whoop. Do you know who really has the power? Congress. So write to your representitives and let them know your concerns about laws and what bills could benifit the american people. They rely on us to help them. Its their job to represent us.
So take an active role, instead of moving to Canada. They are listening.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's a good point Gwen, but those representatives are only interested in issues that will cater to the majority. As you've pointed out, the people have spoken. Which brings me to the core of my 'useless compaining'. The current worship of the concept of democracy needs to be re-examined. The genius of the United States Constitution wasn't that it institutionalized democracy, but that it chose democracy as an expedient toward a higher goal, namely individual liberty.
The important parts of our constitution aren't the ones that promote democracy, but the ones that limit it. The founders chose democracy because it countered the tyrannical abuse of power common in monarchies. It is also very pragmatic, in general, to follow the will of the majority. The majority is usually going to have it's way regardless - no point in fighting up stream.
But... the founders sought to allow the majority to enact their will in such a way that the rights and freedom of the minority were still respected. That's the whole reason for tightly limiting government power with a constitution in the first place.
Lately it seems that national mantra, both in our domestic and foreign policies, is the droning praise of democracy as the highest ideal. I couldn't disagree more. Sane public recognition of personal freedom is a far greater cause and has a lot more to do with what I love about the US than democracy.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:
TheGreyJedi: BTW - Yer a nearsighted, smeg swilling, yak piss drinkin'. rabid fornicator of household appliances, scabby bald Lemur.
apologies to - the nearsighted, swillers of smeg, yak brew imbibers, Menage'a'appliance enthusiasts, Lemurs with excessive skin conditions and Aunts who have been traumatized by flashers. OH yes, and to Monty Python - for lifting a line!
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elllllllderberrries!
I doff my hat to you, cap'n.
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SergeantX: Thank you for your clear and concise answer. As it is your right to complain without any action to back it up, it is my right to ineffectually tell you to shut up about it.
Piratejenny: A few thoughts to chew on about my joining up... You don't know anything about my age, physique, dismemberments, or general health and I prefer to keep it that way. For reference, I'm as pacifistic a person as you can find anywhere. I'm against all war, but recognize that it is sometimes necessary. To quote Thomas Jefferson :
Quote:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
NervousPete: Thank you for jumping to my defense. Always nice to have a friend overseas.
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pete,
I love the way you think. Thanks for keeping the focus on the important stuff. I feel the need to comment on one thing you said:
"And yes, I think the US is mired in one of its darkest days..."
i know many think this is "one of the darkest times" or "the darkest time" or "the dawn of a fascist state." These comments are cropping up all over the place. They seem like hyperbole to me. One could argue that this is or isn't a "bad" time. But darkest?
In the 1860's, this nation turned on itself like a savage dog and tried to tear itself apart. Them's DARKEST days. And before anyone says that's what's happening now, park the hyperbole and remember: we've yet to see thousands of citizens (often family members on both sides) firing guns at each other and leaving bodies in the field for weeks on end.
Then for nearly a generation after that war was "Reconstruction" (which was far from what it claimed to be) and the aftermath. Very bitter time indeed.
Then, closer to now, shortly after Pearl Harbor, my mother watched all four of her brothers go off to fight a war for the survival of our nation... a war that we were LOSING at the time. Neighbors were getting their family members back home in bags and boxes. When she talks of that time, she still chokes up... and she's one of the strongest woman I've ever known.
So... scary? Dark? Maybe. Darkest? I disagree. I believe we need more perpective than that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which draws an interesting parallel to Firefly, the whole Darkest Days, Civil War thing.
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You're talking to someone who is a scientist and has a smattering of philosophy. If we were to discuss this at length, we would eventually get to our "a priori" assumptions. My a priori assumptions are:
There is a real world.
We are connected to it through our senses.
What are yours?
As for science: Science is not a collection of "facts", it is a process of asking questions and testing the answers. Religion, however, does not put it's answers to the test. Science has allowed us to design an electric light switch that works most of the time. I can't say the same thing about religion.
For the record, you are talking to someone trained as an anthropologist & in religious studies. NOT A RELIGIOUS PERSON (aka nut IMHO).
My point is that society as a whole takes science on faith. 90% of the world knows the earth is round, water is made of H2O, and that there are 8 other planets. However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.
Your argument that it can be "proven to them" by being tested is erronious because if the person doesn't believe it in the first place, proof will never be enough.
Furthermore, there are quite a few gaps in sience such as why Newton's laws don't work on the sub-atmoic level, which are glossed over with "science hasn't discovered it yet." Which sounds rather similar to "God hasn't revealed it yet."
To roughly qualify as a religion you must:
1. Give an explanation to the world around.
2. Explain "crisis" events.
3. Have a seperate class/caste (in your case scientists)who interprets the above things.
Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.
As for your a priori argument, I would counter with Decarte, maybe bring up the analogy of the cave which leads us to psycology which is a "science" in which people put huge amounts of faith (and money) which can easily be argued is an acceptable replacement for religious absolvsion.
Finally, I will end with religion does not make light bulbs that mostly work, they make societies which mostly work. To quote from Peter Berger (again) Religion is the "Sacred Canopy" (though safety net is more accurate if less fanciful) that keeps human societies intact. (If you stick this sentence right after my signiture you will have condenced his argument into a nutshell.
*Intresting sidenote on Berger, he argues that religion is man-made and part of the societal construct and he is a Lutheran Minister.
-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting discussion. However, being slightly deaf, and often missing the ONE critical spoken word that would bring undertanding, I thought it was interesting to stumble into the same experience here.
absolvsion? I just can't get that word. Please repeat? Thanks.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The usual trio of verbotten subjects is politics, religion, and sex. Sex is boring. We need a third verbotten topic.
If we were all in the southern US we could try to not discuss the Civil War.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you are coming with a different set of references and vocabulary, which is making it hard for me to get what you are saying.
So here's my take on some topics. Maybe we can go back and forth long enough to establish a dialogue.
Quote:Actually, science can't prove anything, it can only disprove. (To prove something you'd have to test EVERY instance in the forever universe - an impossibility; to disprove something, you only have to do that once.) While it may be that people (in general) think that science has Truth, or perhaps many lesser truths, the scientific process isn't directed that way at all. And as I said, even scientists can't 'prove' anything is true, which makes it a 100% human condition. We are all puny questers.
However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.
Quote:I'm not sure I follow step 2. What is a crisis event? How does it apply to science? Please explain. Thanks. Merci beaucoups.
To roughly qualify as a religion you must:
1. Give an explanation to the world around.
2. Explain "crisis" events.
3. Have a seperate class/caste (in your case scientists) who interprets the above things.
Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:**Accepts bop on the head and grins maniacally**
Originally posted by NervousPete:Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:
TheGreyJedi: BTW - Yer a nearsighted, smeg swilling, yak piss drinkin'. rabid fornicator of household appliances, scabby bald Lemur.
apologies to - the nearsighted, swillers of smeg, yak brew imbibers, Menage'a'appliance enthusiasts, Lemurs with excessive skin conditions and Aunts who have been traumatized by flashers. OH yes, and to Monty Python - for lifting a line!
*Bops Capnrahn on head with stiff cardboard tube out of sense of principle, but respects comical and original over-the-top surreal delivery. Bad lad! Stop!*
This is an example of...
*Sigh*
*Retreats to watch exciting fight because he can't be bothered. And he's wondering why he cares so much about people debating on the net. And he realises that it's because he's tired and he hasn't let go yet. And he believes that there's still hope out there. And now he's realising that he's probably wrong, and that people will always be arrogant and arsey, and that arrogance is ignorance grown up, and that he can no longer tell between playful jape and dangerous trivialisation in posts, and he wonders if it's because something is wrong with him, or he's just tired, and that maybe he's a fool for believing in stating his principles when a foreign land dismisses him, and then he knows that he feels beaten and that he still wants to stand up - and now he feels that he has to go and read some Calvin & Hobbes and forget.
*Sigh*
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
Egg-Zactly what I had in mind - we all need a break before we forget that there is still humor around. And that we, here at FFFn, are still friends and even family.
EDIT
I fergot to whine :"But, but, but - TheGreyJedi started it - whaaaaaaaaaaa!"
"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think you are coming with a different set of references and vocabulary, which is making it hard for me to get what you are saying.
So here's my take on some topics. Maybe we can go back and forth long enough to establish a dialogue.Quote:Actually, science can't prove anything, it can only disprove. (To prove something you'd have to test EVERY instance in the forever universe - an impossibility; to disprove something, you only have to do that once.)
However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.
You can proof through inductive reasoning though.
You wouldn't have to exhaustively proof every single case, if you can show it through 3 steps that it's true for the initial case, then true for the nth case, and finally also true for the n+1 case b/c it's true for the nth case. Then it's true for every single case.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
While it may be that people (in general) think that science has Truth, or perhaps many lesser truths, the scientific process isn't directed that way at all. And as I said, even scientists can't 'prove' anything is true, which makes it a 100% human condition. We are all puny questers.Quote:I'm not sure I follow step 2. What is a crisis event? How does it apply to science? Please explain. Thanks. Merci beaucoups.
To roughly qualify as a religion you must:
1. Give an explanation to the world around.
2. Explain "crisis" events.
3. Have a seperate class/caste (in your case scientists) who interprets the above things.
Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think only in the realm of mathematics and logic can things be 'proven' consistent (not necessarily true), but even then one starts with unprovable assumptions.
However, even in mathematics, it's hard to understand the limits of your assumptions. For example the commutative property (on which so much mathematics rests) is only true in a limited number of dimensions.
Beauty is truth and truth is beauty. Or something like that.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think only in the realm of mathematics and logic can things be 'proven' consistent (not necessarily true), but even then one starts with unprovable assumptions.
However, even in mathematics, it's hard to understand the limits of your assumptions. For example the commutative property (on which so much mathematics rests) is only true in a limited number of dimensions.
Beauty is truth and truth is beauty. Or something like that.
Well, not everything can be proven through inductive reasoning, it is a particular class of problem. But mathematics is the language behind science. There are things that can be proven through logic and reasoning. However, I agree with your discussion that there are certain things within the science and even math field that are taken based on faith. At it's basis in the math field. The point is just a construct. You build lines and fields and space with points. You reduce spaces and different dimensions into fields. But all of these things are based on these basic "unprovable" constructs. Some set of basic precepts.
If you look at the birth of Mathematics and Science, you'll find guys like Pythagorean who basically formed these huge cults where they studied the mystical properties of numbers. All of these scientists and mathematicians through the early industrial period were pretty much all very devoutly religious people who wanted to deduce the mysteries that "God" has created.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nuh-uh! Doodyhead! 
--------------------------------------------------
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
My point is that society as a whole takes science on faith. 90% of the world knows the earth is round, water is made of H2O, and that there are 8 other planets. However I would wager that 99% of them could not prove it to me on the spot nor tell me how it can be proved. They take it on faith.
So what? No-one can be an expert on everything. Everyone has to take something, on faith (regardless of education) in there day to day life. It doesn't make it religion, it just makes it reality.
Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
Furthermore, there are quite a few gaps in sience such as why Newton's laws don't work on the sub-atmoic level, which are glossed over with "science hasn't discovered it yet." Which sounds rather similar to "God hasn't revealed it yet."
Newton's physics only applies to a specific situation. Since then, we have learned about many things that makes them "invalide." Everyday new holes are found in theories and others are filled. It is the nature of science.
It's called learning.
You seem to not realize that every physical system that is constructed has built-in limitations. Why doesn't Newtonian physics work at the sub-atomic level. Because it wasn't designed to! It was designed to explain other things. It is a limiting case of another theory. The goal of physics is to go up that theory heirarchy to one in which everything else is a limiting case, connecting all theories together.
Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
Yes, its a very rough description, but hopefully you will begin to see how science to masses can be qualified as a religion.
Science is only a religion to those that don't understand science and have heard someone say, that they consider "smart", that science is a religion and give some "logical proof" of why it is that way. Normal people wouldn't have even given this topic a moments thought if someone else hadn't brought it up. It is these people that spred this mis-information that started this whole feasco in the first place. Otherwise this wouldn't have be an issue.
The main problem that I've seen when discussing these things with laymen, is that people cannot distinguish between physics and meta-physics/science and the "meta"-science. Unfortunatly one must know what science is to have that fuzzy line become distinct.
Religion doesn't have peer review. In religion things don't/can't change extremely fast. Religion doesn't admit it's mistakes. Religious people don't have to be intellegent to be religious.
Science on the other hand does have peer review. In science things can and do change etremely fast. Science admits mistakes regularly. Scientists do have to be intellegent to be a scientist.
I could go on.
I would also like to make the statement that sociologists being sociologists don't know what science is since they've spent all there time studying sociology. One cannot read a book on "science" and think they know about it. One cannot interview scientists and think for a second that they know about the culture. One must study and live as a scientist before one can. Scientists work on a much too different level for others not in the culture to be able to interpret them (Please note that I'm not saying that this means scientists are better than anyone else. I'm just saying that they are different enough to illude analysis from those outside there culture.). Thus they shouldn't be talking about a culture that they don't understand.
Note: This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It just means that different people are good at different things. The problem comes into play when different people attempt to do or understand things that they can't or are only capable of partially understanding (for one reason or another). And then since they think that they understand, they come to *incorrect* conclusions (ie science = religion).
Quote:
Originally posted by TragicStory:
Finally, I will end with religion
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
If you look at the birth of Mathematics and Science, you'll find guys like Pythagorean who basically formed these huge cults where they studied the mystical properties of numbers. All of these scientists and mathematicians through the early industrial period were pretty much all very devoutly religious people who wanted to deduce the mysteries that "God" has created.
For the birth of mathematics, you'll have to reach a lot further back then that! But, I get your point.
One thing though. Modern mathematics isn't all that old. Around the 1900's the mathematicians came across *many* mathematical inconsistancies. There was a rush to re-construct. They did it but at the base is Set Theory. From what I learned there are two major competing sets of axioms for Set Theory... still. ie The argument isn't over.
And just because somthing started in the religious establishment doesn't make it religious. Back in those days the only educated ones around where the religious, so it's only natural that in there days they filled there time with figuring things out.
EDIT: And you must be *very* careful with induction. For instence, there is a reason why it wasn't used to prove Fermat's Last Theorm. That had to wait > 350 years and the proof pretty much spans most of modern mathematics.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
For example the commutative property (on which so much mathematics rests) is only true in a limited number of dimensions.
Huh?
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
Quit your bitching and do something about it.
To be on topic for a moment, I'd like to ask you some questions.
If GW didn't listen to all the protests, those being the largest since Vietnam and the largest world wide coordinated protests ever, what makes you thinkg he'll listen to smaller ones? I mean, I saw him in an interview say, (paraphrase) "Listening to these protesters would be like making laws based on opinion polls. I'm not going to do that!"
So, since protesting didn't/won't work, voting didn't work, what would you have them do?
And seriously man, it's day 2 after the elections. I think that it'll take a little longer than a day do release this. Get some patience man! Not to mention that these threads are clearly marked. Stay away from them if they bother you so much!
I'd agree with you if this lasted for weeks but 2 days? Please
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:
Pete,
I love the way you think. Thanks for keeping the focus on the important stuff. I feel the need to comment on one thing you said:
"And yes, I think the US is mired in one of its darkest days..."
i know many think this is "one of the darkest times" or "the darkest time" or "the dawn of a fascist state." These comments are cropping up all over the place. They seem like hyperbole to me. One could argue that this is or isn't a "bad" time. But darkest?
In the 1860's, this nation turned on itself like a savage dog and tried to tear itself apart. Them's DARKEST days. And before anyone says that's what's happening now, park the hyperbole and remember: we've yet to see thousands of citizens (often family members on both sides) firing guns at each other and leaving bodies in the field for weeks on end.
Then for nearly a generation after that war was "Reconstruction" (which was far from what it claimed to be) and the aftermath. Very bitter time indeed.
Then, closer to now, shortly after Pearl Harbor, my mother watched all four of her brothers go off to fight a war for the survival of our nation... a war that we were LOSING at the time. Neighbors were getting their family members back home in bags and boxes. When she talks of that time, she still chokes up... and she's one of the strongest woman I've ever known.
So... scary? Dark? Maybe. Darkest? I disagree. I believe we need more perpective than that.
Point, Danfan.
It's a bit too easy to slip into hyperbole, isn't it? Affairs in the US could be worse, right now. And political corruption and vote fiving was rife in the 19th century here in the UK and in the US, so times have been far worse in that respect as well.
So I'll say that life has never been more secure for her people, and healthy - whilst sternly adding in a stoic Seneca sort of way that she's never been more disliked by the rest of the world, and that her culture is in danger of being debased and her society polarised between the very rich and the poor.
But darkest of days? Tch! Shouldn't have said that. The US civil war WAS darker.
(By the by, do you know what the most costly war in British history was? Our civil war of the 16th century! Historians and scientists have made new findings that due to rampant political murders, countless massacres and skirmishes and famine bought on by food supply disruption that ONE IN FOUR people in Britian died during the war!)
Pete
P.S: Cheers for the compliment!
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here is what I have learned from reading all these posts to this thread this morning:
1) NervousPete is funny. And I think I'm interested in this rumored "terrorist custard pie". Does that use real terrorists, or can you substitute imitation?
2) Discussions comparing the legitimacy of science vs. religion hurts my head. But maybe that's because I made straight C's in science and get most of my scientific information from watching life grow in my refrigerator.
3) A lot of people think I should shut up and die. That hurts my feelings and makes me cry inside.
4) Apparently George W. is one of the four horsemen. This is most disconcerting.
5) I clearly don't have enough work to do at my desk today.
"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki: I read the threads b/c I like talking politics and I'm always hopeful to find a nice thread here. We're all smart people and it pains me that people can be so closed minded about all of this. Just because I vote bush does not make me a congenital idiot. That's the point of this thread. The useless bitching I speak of has been going on for 2 years. I think I gave plenty of time.
And voting did work. Apparently the majority of the American people agree with him, at least the majority of those who care enough to actually vote. 4 million is not a small number. And the republican party took both houses of congress. That's the scariest part for me, but it's a clear indicator that the politically active sect of the country wants republican leadership right now. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's what the numbers show. If the protests were large enough he would have been voted out of office.
Case in point: the number I keep seeing is only 17% of new eligible voters (who historically vote overwhelmingly democrat). If young people had cared enough to stop their bitching and go vote, there would be a new President Elect.
I hope this answers your questions, I'm going to go back to fearing a 1 party legislature. Happy flying
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are two big problems in ther United States that prevent rational discussion, one that most other devloped nations don't have and can't possibly comprehend from a distance.
In the past four years, there have been major scandals in the Bush administration and Republican policy - the energy trading deregulation that gave us Enron,...
I knew something in this post was bothering me, and finally figured it out. It's laying the blame for Enron on the Bush administration. Enron's egregious behavior, including cheating on their taxes, began in the mid to late '90s. The SEC started investigating Enron in Oct. 2001, 10 months into the Bush presidency, and the Justice Department began a criminal investigation in Jan. 2002. Also in 2002 The Justice Dept took down the Arthur Anderson accounting firm for obstruction of justice in the destruction of tons of Enron records. A whole slew of Enron execs have since pled guilty or been convicted of various crimes. Energy deregulation the Bushies may have done, but Enron belongs to an earlier administration.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/enron/timeline.html
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you, Maugwai, for adding some levity here . Welcome to the ranks of us with too much time on our hands.
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I sure am late to this thread...
To the left, I say:
Who have you convinced of something today?
The day is early for me, but I honestly believe I changed 2 minds yesterday while at work over the border in Indiana about Gay Marriage. I sat at lunch with them listened to what they thought about it and explained to them why I felt that nothing they felt about marriage was harmed by gay marriage. By the end of the conversation, all 3 of us sat in agreement on 3 things.
1. Maybe gays being married wasn't harmful to their marriages.
2. The right used the word "marriage" as the real lever to drive the entire thing and that the semantics of the whole thing were just silly.
3. A large portion of the left didn't really seem to care about gays being married, they seemed more inclined to want to point at "moronic religious people" that fought gay marriage. So the gays were just a tool towards being able to spew more bile.
I say these things not because I care what your views are or because I look towards others that support gay marriage to agree with those 3 points. I simply bring this up because I suspect that many people here have such a mindset that they would not be capable of having such a conversation with "moronic religious people".
So, I ask again, whose mind did YOU change yesterday?
Cheers,
Gruesome
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I also included Republican policies as part of the problem. If you were to look up the history of energy trading deregulation that was behind Enron, you would see what I mean. Look it up yourself. Perhaps if you had to find this info on your own you would vaue it more instead of just quibbling.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think there in lies the problem. You are classically trained as a scientists with a particular way of deducing and reducing a problem in a particular way - using logic and properties and laws. Using facts and procedures to proof and disprove. To an anthropologist, religion is not simply worshipping, praying and taking ideas on irrationally. It is the practice on internalizing a system of believes that rationalizes your world. In this way, the religions of the world provides a roadmap for people to understand how things work and why things work around them. Each religion has their own stories of beginnings and why people became such. The faith part goes along with it that you learn to understand (and take it as "fact") the original set of precepts of the origins of the world and various other pieces of irreducible concepts. Then you build your "proofs" from that.
Science, in its own way, allows you to do the same. It's has rules that are build on irreducible concepts that one uses to build theories and proofs. These things are then used to rationalize the world around us. The thing is, science doesn't represent reality or truth. Science merely provides us with models to understand how nature and the universe works to the best approximation of how we could understand it at this very moment. Let me take this a step back, back when "Science" was at its infancy and people have a very rudimentary understanding of astronomy - and the understanding was that the earth was flat.
"Earth is flat". That was the "scientific" understanding and the model of the world back then. Everything still worked within that model. Fires burned, the Sun rose and set, the stars came and went. People lived and died. Now, we spin the clock forward a bit when this understanding and the model changed.
"Earth is round". Now we have a different set of understandings and a completely and radically different model of the world. However! Everything still worked exactly the same as before. The world and the reality didn't change around us when that model changed. The truth is still out there. The only thing that has changed is our understanding, our made up set of rules. Reality is still exactly the same as before. But we now have a different way of explaining it than before.
To an anthropologist, that is a very significant event. It's a people changing their world story. Now, as a sideline. Today's scientists have a huge problem. All of these discoveries and new theories on the nature and world around us are being uncovered at a quicker rate than ever before. But we have fewer and fewer people (as a comparison to the larger population, not meant that people are dying off rapidly) who can understand all of these things. People just aren't as versed in basic science anymore because it's not being taught well in schools, lack of interest, and the field is just really really wide spread for anyone to gain a good generalized understanding and to keep pace. This affects us in at least two levels. As a society, if you want to change the world story, you've to get the word out there and get some sort of rudimentary understanding - it's not happening (I've seen the latest PR efforts, it's pretty insulting the way it's "dumbed down"). That in effect, affects funding for further research. If people don't understand and don't believe in what you are doing, then the money isn't going to come. And that's a shame.
Now I want to preface this next small part by first saying that I am not arguing about your beliefs, I am just stating an observation.
When you say that "religious" people aren't intelligent, that's a big insult. I am not religious at all myself, but I understand it (no, I can't recite every chapter and verse of the Bible or the Koran. But that's not what I mean) and I also have many friends who are scientists but religious at the same time. No, I mean seriously scientists and seriously religious. They are physicists who work in the academia researching new physical phenomena and they go to bibl
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If we were all in the southern US we could try to not discuss the Civil War
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Another verbotten topic to mangle! Thanks!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
INFO: my home computer died, really busy at work, might not be able to post until 1-2 weeks later.
Quick Replies:
The correct word is absolution. Plese absolve me of my error.
To the "science" people: Don't just think of American Christianity when thinking of religion. Think broadly, from shamanism to Later Day Saints to scientology as early stage religons which change rapidly. (like i argue science is) But I am really enjoying the discussion.
Jason, great post. I think it explains the basic differences well.
Lastly, please don't debate off this post as it is really rushed during lunch.
Gotta go, work calls.
-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I also included Republican policies as part of the problem. If you were to look up the history of energy trading deregulation that was behind Enron, you would see what I mean. Look it up yourself. Perhaps if you had to find this info on your own you would vaue it more instead of just quibbling.
My quibble is with the way you specifically blame the Bush administration and Republican policies in the last four years for Enron. Enron was cheating on their income tax at least as early as 1996. Most of the crimes for which Enron execs have been jailed occurred prior to 2001. If you want to condemn Bush for energy deregulation, go ahead, but Enron's not his fault. They turned bad during the Clinton administration. Clinton's Justice Dept could have shut them down, but Bush's did.
This morphing of the facts is the same to me as the Lancet's claim of 100,000 deaths in Iraq becoming 100,000 "civilian" deaths, then 100,000 civilians killed by Coalition forces, then "mostly women and children targeted by smart bombs". The fact that you want to make a point or support a position doesn't validate altering the original information.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As an ex-physics major and a member of both "worlds" as some people would put it, science is certainly fallible. Old and accepted theories get disproven quite often. Science is, in and of itself, a belief system. Need proof? This whole "nobody knew the world is flat 500 years ago" thing is just plain wrong. An astronomer and geographer by the name of Eratosthenes is credited as being the first person to measure the earths circumference. Over 2000 years ago. Yet, all of Europe is reputed to have known for certain that the Earth was flat, just 500 years ago.
Science itself is based on faith and experience, just as religion is.
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It is the practice on internalizing a system of believes that rationalizes your world
My daughter is (to put it kindly) delayed. It's very hard to explain the difference between "Jesus" and "electrons", both of which are really just concepts.
The only way to demonstrate the difference is to say: Well, we think of electrons because it helps us explain things like lightening, and with that understanding we can light up lights and make motors spin. You can't do the same thing with Jesus- he won't make the lights light up or turn a motor or make your medicine.
I find it a little unnerving that she hears more about Jesus in her day to day life- even tho we are an atheistic family of scientists- than she does about electrons. I also participate in a neurology web forum, and it never ceases to amaze me that after someone's child has had a successful surgery, the parents often say "THANK YOU JESUS".
Just a comment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I also participate in a neurology web forum, and it never ceases to amaze me that after someone's child has had a successful surgery, the parents often say "THANK YOU JESUS".
Just a comment.
It's because they have faith (in God. More specifically, the Christian God.), which you as an atheist, or myself, as a "militant agnostic" don't have, and can't quite understand. They believe that Jesus intervened for their child, due to their faith and prayers. They may also believe that God is the reason electrons do what they do, because God created the electrons.
I think about faith quite a bit. I wonder how my family had it, and how I went to church regularly for 20 years without getting it. As I get older, I look back on the times that faith was a comfort to members of my family, and think it wouldn't be such a bad thing, but it's just not there for me. I note that faith doesn't locate one anywhere in particular on the religious scale, and that there are people of faith on both sides of any particular political issue.
We will do people of faith a disservice of we try to classify them as one thing based on the politics of the noisy few. That's why I'm sort of leery of discussing politics as it relates to religion. All of the faithful get tarred with the same brush. We need to be very careful or we end up being as biased as we believe some of them are.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you brought up a really good example. To many many folks, Jesus and electrons are about the same (I am not saying that these folks have an intellect of a 5 year old.) sort of unseeable amorphous thing that, in fact, do require some amount of faith to be able to believe that they "exist". Yes, there are a lot of mathematics and physical experiments that can show that in fact, something like an electron fits into the scientific model that we use. (We can even "see" electrons from the tracks they and their buddy particles leave behind in a cloud chamber). But to people who will never can into those aspects. It's all magic to them. Can it be part of their believe system too? Sure, but they will never come to understand it through the rigor of scientific proofs or math. For the greater populace, "science" is faith based.
And much more importantly, if you go out to some of these other countries where aboriginals still live the way they did eons ago. Healing is done thru traditional means of praising some sort of spirit or diety or thru some sort of shamanic ritual - it might be accompanied by some sort of herbal or procedural practice that actually does the curing (cleansing with ash, sitting in a smoke house, etc.) But to them, it works and each day that they live, they see and find "evidences" around them that affirm their beliefs. To them, the night is brighter or darker on certain nights because of the spirits or their deities. To them, their entire world around them works because of all of these influences. They can explain everything just as well and as terrifically and as reasonably can within the confines of their believe system.
To them, lighting, thunders, and storms are an affirmation of their believe system. If they pray , it works like this. If they treat others kindly or badly, it affects us in other ways.
To the modern people, to enlightened scientists, the believe system also allows them to explain their world as terrifically and as reasonably as you can within the confines of that believe system.
These aboriginal people are no less rational than you or me. We all just have a different way of explaining how the world around us work, different ways of rationalizing it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
It is the practice on internalizing a system of believes that rationalizes your world
My daughter is (to put it kindly) delayed. It's very hard to explain the difference between "Jesus" and "electrons", both of which are really just concepts.
The only way to demonstrate the difference is to say: Well, we think of electrons because it helps us explain things like lightening, and with that understanding we can light up lights and make motors spin. You can't do the same thing with Jesus- he won't make the lights light up or turn a motor or make your medicine.
I find it a little unnerving that she hears more about Jesus in her day to day life- even tho we are an atheistic family of scientists- than she does about electrons. I also participate in a neurology web forum, and it never ceases to amaze me that after someone's child has had a successful surgery, the parents often say "THANK YOU JESUS".
Just a comment.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Please note that I wrote this post in haste.
@Jasonzzz:
You are speaking mostly in meta-physical terms.
Again, religion cannot change or changes extremely slowly. Science can change in a very fundamental way *very* quickly. Look at the development of quantum mechanics in the first few decades of the 20th century for an example. The "creation myth"... well... changed. This cannot happen in religion.
Basically, religion has set its beginning and will not/cannot change it. Science set its beginning and has/will change it before/again based on need. That is quite a fundamental difference if you ask me.
eg Science only has what it thinks is the irreducible concepts. This may change today or tommorow or never. The difference is that Science accomidates for this change. Religion cannot, it's the problem of blind faith. You might note that scientists do *not* have this problem.
Science also doesn't rationalize the world around us. It explains it. The difference being that rationalization is philosophy and explaination is science. There is a *large*, albeit, subtle difference.
Science also represents current reality and truth. Does this mean that it cannot change? No. After all, any truth is just a relative thing, right? I mean what is truth? What is reality? Oooo, but that isn't science. That's philosophy.
Scientists come up with how the world works. The religious, the philosophers then argue over what it all "means."
You story is rather inacurate. Allow me to correct it.
"Earth is flat" - Once "true."
"Earth is round" - Fundamental difference. Extremely different. Reality was very different, the people just wipped the sweat from their brow when the realized that the world would go on.
To anyone *in that day*, this was a vast change in understanding there world. I realize this along with anyone that is half-way intellegent. To say that reality didn't really change and that was what science thought is just telling of how much you don't understand the subject.
Today's scientists are doing a lot of good work. Yes, the schools are doing an extremely poor job of "teaching" science. Which is one of the problems. That being that the teachers are teaching science like it is a absolute when this is clearly not the case. Teachers almost always don't actually understand what they are teaching and will actually teach it improperly (I know of numerous cases where this is the case). Teachers teach these things as thought it is a horror and this clearly comes through to the kids (science = ick!).
But, one must realize that no-one that there job isn't to do research can keep up. To keep up you must understand what is going on. With todays science, being extremely specialized, the only thing that can be done, is to buy and read something like Popular Mechanics and/or watch the Discover Channel and/or... I think you get my point.
But also, it isn't necassarily a problem if the people don't understand how things are in todays world. I don't understand how my apartment building doesn't fall over in high wind. I just trust the person that designed it and the people that built it. Is this faith? That is arguible. I just call it trusting my fellow man.
The problem really arises when you have people that don't understand, saying that they do, and then making some conjectures that are filled with logical flaws. Since the layman isn't able to see such things ((s)he doesn't understand science) the problem self perpetuates.
Should people know more? Absolutly. Do the *have* to? Not necassarily. I don't know how my computer works, but it does. If it breaks and I can't fix it, is there someone that can? Yes.
If things remain this way, there isn't necassarily a problem. People just must know there limitations.
And the way it is "dumbed down" is almost the only way that the masses will be able to understand it (unfortunatly). If the true theory was presented, then it would go over even a lot of scientists heads (science has become very specialized).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
This morphing of the facts is the same to me as the Lancet's claim of 100,000 deaths in Iraq becoming 100,000 "civilian" deaths, then 100,000 civilians killed by Coalition forces, then "mostly women and children targeted by smart bombs". The fact that you want to make a point or support a position doesn't validate altering the original information.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
BTW, the lancet article actually quotes a range of 8000 - 194000. They just decided to pick 100000 for convenience and bias. The reporters decided to only quote 100000 because that was their viewpoint anyways.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
As an ex-physics major and a member of both "worlds" as some people would put it, science is certainly fallible.
Proven constantly.
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
Science itself is based on faith and experience, just as religion is.
There is a difference between faith and belief. And just because belief is involved, it doesn't make it a religion. Proof by contradiction: I believe that the internet will work along with my computer. It doesn't mean that it's a religion for me.
And you're going to have to mention to be a moment what religion was told that something it had faith in was wrong, provided evidence and they changed straight way. This isn't an if and only if.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
If we were all in the southern US we could try to not discuss the Civil War
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Another verbotten topic to mangle! Thanks!
Heh heh! Chat away!
Here in England, it's more like 'The North Will Rise!'
Death to the southern jessies!
*Nyuk*
'tis all in fun, though the English civil war did kill 1/4 of the population apparently - some millions - they're about to release a book on it.
Pete
P.S: My home town was Royalist, in case you're asking. The one I'm living in now was Parliamentarian (the winning side) but changed allegiance to the Royalists just before they lost! How mad is that?
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What I actually said was that to be religious you don't need to be intellegent as opposed having to be intellegent to be a scientist. But, since you seem not to understand this... well, it begs a certain question about you.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Look, at some point thru out the discussion and your arguments. Maybe you thought that you are on shaky ground or something. But there isn't a need to insult the other party just so you can "proof" your intelligence. If the academic rigor of holding a medium'ish in length discourse is a bit much for you - for whatever reason, just say so and we can take a break and talk about it some other day.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's great. BTW, how's the GunPowder Plot festivities going on so far today?
Quote:
Originally posted by NervousPete:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
If we were all in the southern US we could try to not discuss the Civil War
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Another verbotten topic to mangle! Thanks!
Heh heh! Chat away!
Here in England, it's more like 'The North Will Rise!'
Death to the southern jessies!
*Nyuk*
'tis all in fun, though the English civil war did kill 1/4 of the population apparently - some millions - they're about to release a book on it.
Pete
P.S: My home town was Royalist, in case you're asking. The one I'm living in now was Parliamentarian (the winning side) but changed allegiance to the Royalists just before they lost! How mad is that?
"If you can keep your head whilst others... eurgh! Ack! I've spilt my ink! Ugh! Ink on my trousers! Agh! Ink on my shirt! My only hope! The window! Aieeeeee!" (Falls to death)
- Jonathan Nash
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NervousPete:
Hullo, Connorflynn.
I have a sense of humour. I have one of the darkest senses of humour around. I watch and ENJOY Chris Morris for God's sake, and he is utterly twisted. The only comedian who can make jokes out of child murder and make a point.
But the trouble is, both your's and Greyjedi's comments don't come across as harmless jokes. They come across as something I cannot abide: Gloating. And lack of respect.
I'm proud to call myself a liberal. My grandmother was a conservative, my grandad was a communist (until invasion of Poland and it all sounds unlikely, but, y'know, only in Britain) and I've inherited beliefs from both. Calling me a fag, or a pinko (what the hell is a pinko anyway, it's catchy, but what is it?) or a hippy, or a commie is automatically voiding my arguements and beliefs solely because you view them as leftist.
Ya got me all wrong friend. I'm not gloating. I'm lauging at the hilarity of it all and rather enjoying Greyjedi's sense of sarcasm and humor. He goes over the top in a sarcastically humorous fashion all for the purpose of living up to the standards that many of the Anti-American or Ultra fringe folks who post on these boards. Something I can relate to, when all I ever read on these Real World Discussion boards is doomsday notions and frivolous/specious conspiracy theories and Anti-american spew.
I'm a big fan of constructive exchange. I have been labeled a fascist, a nazi, a Rightwing zealot and a Bushie by many on these boards when I disagreed with a topic. Indeed I find that the Deep left are much more intolerant of differing opinions then those centrists of whom I tend to gather together with to discuss politics.
I'm also not an Anti-Liberal Republican. I voted for Badnarik in these elections. I'm a moderate..Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative. Call em a Libertarian if you will. Bush's economic policies piss me off. There is a HUGE difference in my mind between a liberal and a Left wing fringe whacko. Most "Liberals" aren't threatening to immigrate, nor are they slashing their wrists and gnashing their teeth today. I also don't believe I have once attacked any of your posts. Nor have I characterized you as a nutcase Lib.
PS.. Pinko -
A person sympathetic to the Communist Party and Russia during the Cold War but not an outright Communist. Often used by people on the extreme right to describe anyone who doesn't share their views. Probably very similar in meaning but more insulting than "Fellow Traveller". Widely used in the USA and other countries. Used most famously in 1950 by Richard Nixon against Helen Gahagan Douglas: "She's pink down to her underwear". (At the time, women's undergarments, if colored, were usually pink.)
Here is a neat link to all the various political names etc..etc.. from my favorite Online encyclopedia site Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pejorative_political_slogans
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My apologies, Connorflynn.
I guess it's partly because I was on a less enlightened board than this and the name calling between some people (board had nowt to do with Firefly) got pretty nasty, with all sorts of tarnishings. I guess I mistook yours and Greyjedi's flippant quips as genuine scorn, my fault.
It's easy to mistake people from posts. Further up this one I've been called a Bushie for defending a poster, when actually I'm almost totally against Bush's policies.
I guess it gets a bit confusing to me as a Brit, where we will destroy each other verbally and physically over football and lifestyle, but actually get along reasonably well politics wise despite the differences. We just don't insult people politically over here even in jest, apart from the odd mild Thatcher related jibe, we just don't feel the need. The only intolerance I've met in this country have been from the extreme left, ironically. However, in the US where I've heard broadcasts by Right wing radio commentators, I've been frequently shocked at how they feel they can insult people. I think I'm just terrified of dialogue breaking down to such an extent that I'm possibly jumping at shadows. I remember how on another board I was accused of being a commie because I believed in the national health service and had policies slightly left of centre. A Flexo, "Nah, I'm just kidding, you're great guys!" after a devestating insult is pretty handy.
If you haven't seen that Futurama ep, hang your heads in shame.
I just hope nobody really pays attention to the bile spewed by Ann Coulter and the like, and those books that keep being released on Amazon that have tons of sales viciously laying into people, even the affable, generally competent but sexually cretinous Clinton is painted as a demon monster from hell. Yup, if people paid attention to Rush Limbaugh's mad comments and Coulter's remarks, that would really depress me.
But then, Michael Moore does a bit as well. I thought he walked on water once with Roger & Me (which was a true work of greatness) and the fab TV Nation that showed on BBC 2. Now I feel he is obsessed with his own celebrity and damages the democrat's cause with sloppily argued points and flip remarks, no matter how serious and sometimes well grounded his allegations are. Noam Chomsky he ain't, and he's no where near as funny as Bill Hicks was in getting his points across.
Anyway, back to the point. It's also possible that I'm too depressed over the election to laugh. I'll get over it, the Serenity for the UK announcement today helped a lot. I'm just down over what I view as a major mistake.
So, we'll agree on the following deal. As far as well reasoned, affably presented and well sourced reports go...
Eg: "The Bush administration was hopelessly naive as to the dangers of disorder in Iraq post-victory and showed incompetence in securing weapons caches and preventing an anarchic, fearful atmosphere conducive to insurgants breaking out. The following reports by Reauters, AP, Amnesty, the UN and Red Cross indicate that blah blah blah..."
Then we shall all stroke our chins thoughtfully, and you might respond...
"Unfortunately the Bush administration misjudged the mood on the ground entirely due to eager to please Iraqi exiles prior to the invasion, who deliberately painted a rosy picture to ensure the invasion took place yadda yadda yadda..."
And we shall see where each other is coming from. And exchange warm firm manly handshakes. And not say anything like, "Bush wants to wipe out Islam! He just loves blowing things up!" or "Why don't you fight in Iraq if you feel they're doing such a bad job of it, pinko (winks at Flynn) liberal! They died for you! etc. etc. etc."
For the above sort of statements, rightous contempt will be displayed. I have to say, I only agree with Ghoulman's POV around 1/6 of the time. Enough to dislike Bush on, but enough to take umbrage about many of the arguements.
But you have done mighty in your calm and lovely reply! I salute you and feed your children! (Or something) And
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
stantly.
>snip<
There is a difference between faith and belief. And just because belief is involved, it doesn't make it a religion. Proof by contradiction: I believe that the internet will work along with my computer. It doesn't mean that it's a religion for me.
Alright mister. You just started a religious war. Igod is gonna smack down your ethernet connection faster than you can say Allah Ackbar.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I noticed that you've only quote the necessary portion of my post. I thank you for that, along with all the dial up users here.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Look, at some point thru out the discussion and your arguments. Maybe you thought that you are on shaky ground or something. But there isn't a need to insult the other party just so you can "proof" your intelligence. If the academic rigor of holding a medium'ish in length discourse is a bit much for you - for whatever reason, just say so and we can take a break and talk about it some other day.
You prove my point. And it is *not* what you say it is. I am *not* proving my intellegence nor thinking I'm on shaky ground. I am proving that you don't know as much as you think you know and as such have been quite misguided regarding this topic. I also pointed out that you didn't actually read my post. Could I have put it in nicer terms? Yes. Oh well, live and learn (science).
But then again, your words kind of lose there weight when you become a hypocrite and do what you say I did (Becoming condescending and insulting). Which from your post above you think is wrong. Perhaps your discorse here isn't as shiny as you think it is. Perhaps this is (to quote you) "a bit much for you".
But then again (again), maybe you just read it that way. Maybe you are just being too sensitive. Perhaps it's just how I wrote it and not what I wrote. Maybe you just should've taken that comment as a hint to be more careful when reading posts here.
I also notice that you haven't even touched on any of my points. Can I assume that we've reached a consensus?
I know my limitations and have stayed out of many conversations here because I wasn't well versed in the topic in question. I definitly read them and have learned a lot from the people here, but I tend only to participate in the discusions that I can contribute to.
I'll also note that I don't doubt that I've learned something from you. Here for instance, our conversation has taught me a lot about the general perceptions of science among the masses and how different it is from reality. It is something that can and should be fixed. Unfortunatly it'd take a national (actually world wide) effort to do, which would require the teachers at all levels to change most of there current system. Somehow I think it's an uphill battle.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Alright mister. You just started a religious war. Igod is gonna smack down your ethernet connection faster than you can say Allah Ackbar.
Mwah ha ha! You can do no such thing! My god is the all powerful OpenBSD! His minion Puffy will defend me and smite all who attempt to trespass on my domain! Mwah ha ha!!!
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
The useless bitching I speak of has been going on for 2 years. I think I gave plenty of time.
I do see your point. But, to be fair though, they have had cause to bitch for that time. Just because the were seemingly constantly bitching doesn't mean they were bitching about the same thing constantly. It's just that the Bush admin has given a constant flow of things to bitch about.
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
And voting did work. Apparently the majority of the American people agree with him, at least the majority of those who care enough to actually vote. 4 million is not a small number.
But when you consider that 115 million people voted that number does become small. Thats < 4% of the people that voted. This makes it a *slim* majority. GW must be *very* careful in the next little while or something bad might happen. He's going to have to tread on egg-shells until he (if he can) unite the people, etc, etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
If the protests were large enough he would have been voted out of office.
If the protest were large enough, which they were, then you guys wouldn't be in Iraq and most of the current mess wouldn't exist. Yes, I know it's a moot point, but it needed saying.
But when it comes to who voted and who didn't. That is a thing that has come under much critizism. There are alligations of voter fraud. There is the e-voting thing, people not registered to vote and votes not counting that are all in question. There are many students that couldn't vote b/c they didn't have transport (ie couldn't afford it) to there home town to vote and that state wouldn't let them vote there. etc.
I would think that Kerry just didn't want to challenge these things b/c he didn't want to rip apart the country. Something that would surely have happened if he did. He can also continue the fight in his old job.
'Tis a tangled web and I gather that no-one will ever know that truth about what happened. I just hope that GW doesn't do something stupid. I don't know about you, but to me, history tells me not to hold my breath. Let's just hope it isn't too bad.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
hmmm... So far, from what I gather in your posts, and this is strictly an observation. You either take the view or make the presumption that just b/c other people don't take your hardcore and strict fundamentalist view of pure logic and science that they are non-intellects. On top of that, you seem to "know" and believe that people who worships dieties are not capable of critical and independent thought. In fact, these "others" will never get your "pure" view of science and we will never be able to hold a true discourse about it - since you know so much, and "we" know so little.
I presented a view from another field of study that you might find enlightening. Anthropology and philosphy isn't my particular field of study, but I read about them because it is interesting. I presented ideas that discusses what other people see when they look at how people behave and explain their world around them. It's from another set of perspectives. You choose to remain in your little box of your chosen field - That's fine, people shouldn't talk about and discuss things that they don't understand. But the inquisitive mind can ask questions, not shoot down a foreign idea immediately and smugly. A self-proclaimed scientist who behaves in this way is really in now way a scientist a all. Sure, you might work in the field and you might hold all of that knowledge. But your mind isn't there. In your heart, you are close-minded and sit in your ivory tower taking jabs at people who comes to you with new ideas (that is new to you).
From a scientist to another scientist, learn something about humanities, philosophy, and anthropology, expand outside of your field to see how other people see things. They weren't just little GE classes that you had to get a passing grade on your way to your "real" studies. Not everyone will ever see things as a scientist do, but everyday there are curious people who want to understand science who might never grasp it fully. But at least they won't smugly reject scientific ideas off hand.
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I noticed that you've only quote the necessary portion of my post. I thank you for that, along with all the dial up users here.Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Look, at some point thru out the discussion and your arguments. Maybe you thought that you are on shaky ground or something. But there isn't a need to insult the other party just so you can "proof" your intelligence. If the academic rigor of holding a medium'ish in length discourse is a bit much for you - for whatever reason, just say so and we can take a break and talk about it some other day.
You prove my point. And it is *not* what you say it is. I am *not* proving my intellegence nor thinking I'm on shaky ground. I am proving that you don't know as much as you think you know and as such have been quite misguided regarding this topic. I also pointed out that you didn't actually read my post. Could I have put it in nicer terms? Yes. Oh well, live and learn (science).
But then again, your words kind of lose there weight when you become a hypocrite and do what you say I did (Becoming condescending and insulting). Which from your post above you think is wrong. Perhaps your discorse here isn't as shiny as you think it is. Perhaps this is (to quote you) "a bit much for you".
But then again (again), maybe you just read it that way. Maybe you are just being too sensitive. Perhaps it's just how I wrote it and not what I wrote. Maybe you just should've taken that comment as a hint to be more careful when reading posts here.
I also notice that you haven't even touched on any of my points. Can I assume that we've reached a consensus?
I know my limitations and have stayed out of many conversations here because I wasn't well versed in the topic in question. I definitly read them and have learned a lot from the people here, but I tend only to participate in the discusions that I can contribute to.
I'll also note that I don't doubt that I've learne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know that we're passionate here, and that's a great thing. But when someone spends an entire post responding with "blah blah blah" to each and every para of a long quote, or threatens to shoot people in the face, or calls someone a right-wing (or left-wing) moron... I mean really, what's the point?
It seems to me that we should REFRAIN from name-calling, threats, and ad hominem arguments even if they're followed by a haha or smiley, even if WE think it's a joke. There's too much room for misunderstanding, a little sensitivity goes a long way. That goes for me too.
Jasonzz- you got lumped in with TheGreyJedi in my mind.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME