Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: BlueThunder on September 11, 2005, 10:53:35 pm
-
In this you name good things Bush has done.Helping the victums of Hurricane Katrinia.
-
In this you name good things Bush has done.Helping the victums of Hurricane Katrinia.
Bush has not yet been able to dismantle the United States of America into a religious conservative dystopia. This is to his supreme credit. I also hear he bicycles. I'm a big fan of bicycling myself, and, for the icing on the cake, the more time Bush spends biking, the less time he spends being president...so I'm all for that.
-
Your just a librel, I deal with you guys all the time(Librels).
-
Your just a librel, I deal with you guys all the time(Librels).
I can see that.
-
Whats that supposed to mean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Are you making fun of me for what I think about Bush.
-
less ! marks. As for what Bush has done.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Um...he didn't let Kerry win? Lesser of two evils.
-
Whats that supposed to mean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![ size=24][/size]Are you making fun of me for what I think about Bush.
Not at all. Bush would be proud to have a supporter like you.
-
Lets see, he took down Saddam Hussien :P
-
Yay for attacking countries that didn't really do anything to deserve having their government being torn down! God, wasn't his War on Terrorism a great idea? WOW, taking a concept, like terrorism, and then associating it to a specific race and bombing innocent people! But no worries! We SURELY got the terrorists, whoever they are!
France: Yea! get those terrorists! *cough* >_>
-
Oh yeah, and just have this monster continue to slaugter his people.
-
Oh yeah, and just have this monster continue to slaugter his people.
Good point. We should do it for him by failing to secure the country and allowing the Iraqi people to live in abject poverty and fear for their lives every day of the year.
-
In this you name good things Bush has done.Helping the victums of Hurricane Katrinia.
The irony would be funnier if the situation wasn't this serious.
-
The irony would be funnier if the situation wasn't this serious.
Well I'M laughing because I don't even live in your inferior country ^_^
Oh yeah, and just have this monster continue to slaugter his people.
Yes! And by securing Saddam, we killed more innocent people then this guy ever would have! YAAAY double standard! These people can live in peace now *watches people kill each other and burn their houses and crap* You heard me.
-
What country do you live in Aura?
-
Wow, you laugh at people's suffering and expense, just because of your views of a country? That's sick.
-
Wow, you laugh at people's suffering and expense, just because of your views of a country? That's sick.
Talking to me are you?
-
Japan, and yea I know. Ironically, I'm sick in bed as I type this. Go figure. I'll just say that these people had three days to get their asses out of New Orleans and the New Orleans local government had the funds to fix that...levi's thing or whatever. The people that did stay either died out via natural selection (good riddance, this world is full as it is), Accepted help and got out of there, or are trying to shoot down helicopters bringing them food.
shooting down helicopters bringing them FOOD AND WATER!
These people in particular can die. Mother Nature doesn't want them, apparently.
-
Aura lives in Japan. You know, failing economy, short people etc etc :)
Anyway, good things he has done? The War in Afganastan. Taking Saddam, a threat to US intrest and security, out. Forcing Lybia to give up its Nuclear Program. Nominating John Roberts for the Supreame court. Tax cuts. Lessing the UN's influence on out country. A return to counter-attacking the people who try and kill us, rather than just using words on them.
-
Wow, you laugh at people's suffering and expense, just because of your views of a country? That's sick.
Talking to me are you?
No, you weren't the one who mentioned laughing and/or inferior country in your posts.
-
Seriously, watching some guy kill his sister for a bag of ice is funny.
-
Japan, and yea I know. Ironically, I'm sick in bed as I type this. Go figure. I'll just say that these people had three days to get their asses out of New Orleans and the New Orleans local government had the funds to fix that...levi's thing or whatever. The people that did stay either died out via natural selection (good riddance, this world is full as it is), Accepted help and got out of there, or are trying to shoot down helicopters bringing them food.
shooting down helicopters bringing them FOOD AND WATER!
These people in particular can die. Mother Nature doesn't want them, apparently.
As "worthless" as these people seem, it's still human lives. Nothing, in my opinion, is worth taking away their oppurtunity at life. But I do agree, the situation was handled at best "incompetently" (The FEMA had 5 days notice practically, and sat on their hands for that time while TSHTF in NO.)
-
These people in particular can die. Mother Nature doesn't want them, apparently.
Neither do I. :twisted:
-
Seriously, watching some guy kill his sister for a bag of ice is funny.
If it's fake, sure. Real, not so funny, in my opinion.
-
Bush should invade Japan so he can take out Aura :)
-
Aura lives in Japan. You know, failing economy, short people etc etc :)
Anyway, good things he has done? The War in Afganastan. Taking Saddam, a threat to US intrest and security, out. Forcing Lybia to give up its Nuclear Program. Nominating John Roberts for the Supreame court. Tax cuts. Lessing the UN's influence on out country. A return to counter-attacking the people who try and kill us, rather than just using words on them.
It is a counterproductive oversimplification to say that the people who did not evacuate New Orleans deserved what they got. Many of them lived in abject poverty and did not have the means to evacuate, or could have evacuated in theory, but had lived in the city practically all their lives and, out of their extreme poverty, could not imagine abandoning the only meager possessions they had.
We failed those people.
-
We failed those people.
No, I am sitting in my house, YOU failed those people
-
I'm immortal. Besides, Japan has treaties and political loopholes I can take advantage of.
Anyway, if you feel so strongly about human lives, fine. But I don't. There's too many of us, and A lot of humanity is taking from society without giving back. They're parasites who are bringing chips of the Earth down with them. We're all going to die eventually. What's the big deal? It's not that there are MORE people dying, it's that they're all dying in one specific area and it's on the news.
-
These people in particular can die. Mother Nature doesn't want them, apparently.
Neither do I. :twisted:
Nightmare, here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say you have a gun to the head of one of "these people." Now think, VERY deeply. Would you pull the trigger? Basically, you're saying you are.
And to Lord J Esq: Yes we have, and that's why this is such a damn tragedy. Not because Bush misunderestimated the situation, or because the liberals were too busy offending people left and right.
-
These people in particular can die. Mother Nature doesn't want them, apparently.
Neither do I. :twisted:
Nightmare, here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say you have a gun to the head of one of "these people." Now think, VERY deeply. Would you pull the trigger? Basically, you're saying you are.
Dude, they would probably kill me before I take the gun out.
-
Lord J Esq, you quote my response, yet talking about the hurricane... I didn't say anything about that there.
-
These people in particular can die. Mother Nature doesn't want them, apparently.
Neither do I. :twisted:
Nightmare, here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say you have a gun to the head of one of "these people." Now think, VERY deeply. Would you pull the trigger? Basically, you're saying you are.
Dude, they would probably kill me before I take the gun out.
I'm hoping by dodging the question it's made you consider it with somewhat more serious and mature thought than you had...
-
We failed those people.
No, I am sitting in my house, YOU failed those people
As a society, we collectively share responsibility for President Bush's failure to deal with the disaster in New Orleans effectively. Of course, those of you who voted for Bush share a greater percentage of that responsibility, but I acknowledge my part too. I wish more of my fellow liberals would do more than simply complain, and actually act on their beliefs.
Anyway, if you feel so strongly about human lives, fine. But I don't. There's too many of us, and A lot of humanity is taking from society without giving back. They're parasites who are bringing chips of the Earth down with them. We're all going to die eventually. What's the big deal? It's not that there are MORE people dying, it's that they're all dying in one specific area and it's on the news.
I don't know if you can believe me, but your rubric is terribly flawed. If there are people out there who don't deserve to live, poverty is not a good measure of that. Your words are terribly ill-conceived.
And to Lord J Esq: Yes we have, and that's why this is such a damn tragedy. Not because Bush misunderestimated the situation, or because the liberals were too busy offending people left and right.
You are right that there is more to it than simply blaming Bush. To be honest, I had no idea how poor New Orleans was until this disgrace. What we have here is a sociological failure here, bigger than George W. Bush and even the entire Republican party. We have poor priorities as a nation, and as individuals. We are misguided, weak-minded, pig-headed, anti-intellectual, and undisciplined. We speak much more kindness than we perpetrate. Our ideals are much loftier than our handiwork. It is this culture which elected those who lead our country today. Nor are liberals granted a wholesale exemption from culpability. Too many of them are just as petty and miserable. Just because they're on the correct side of the issues doen't mean they personally are upstanding, decent, reasonable people.
It's always a tragedy when a major disaster snuffs out so many lives at once. And that tragedy is far worse when the disaster was preventable, as it was here. But despite all of this, I have such little hope for the teeming millions as a whole...I really expect they will learn nothing. And that, more so than anything else, is why we failed those who died in the South, in New Orleans...and those who have yet to perish because we are an imperfect people with small dreams and bad judgment.
-
Lord J Esq, you quote my response, yet talking about the hurricane... I didn't say anything about that there.
I must have gotten mixed up in my quotes. This thread is moving rather quickly. Sorry about that.
-
It's always a tragedy when a major disaster snuffs out so many lives at once. And that tragedy is far worse when the disaster was preventable, as it was here. But despite all of this, I have such little hope for the teeming millions as a whole...I really expect they will learn nothing. And that, more so than anything else, is why we failed those who died in the South, in New Orleans...and those who have yet to perish because we are an imperfect people with small dreams and bad judgment.
That is a problem not unique to the United States.
I've always said mankind is fundamentally stupid race. Why the Goddess hasn't wiped us form the face of the Earth is beyond me. Her eternal compassions shall be her undoing.
There is one thing in Chrono-verse that right true in reality, and that is the planet would be better off without us.
Sorry, went off an a tangent there...
-
Your just a librel, I deal with you guys all the time(Librels).
For God's sake, man, learn how to spell "liberal" correctly.
-
I'm immortal. Besides, Japan has treaties and political loopholes I can take advantage of.
Anyway, if you feel so strongly about human lives, fine. But I don't. There's too many of us, and A lot of humanity is taking from society without giving back. They're parasites who are bringing chips of the Earth down with them. We're all going to die eventually. What's the big deal? It's not that there are MORE people dying, it's that they're all dying in one specific area and it's on the news.
I agree.
Look, It's America.. The richest country and most powerful in the world. And from a little hurricane, they're asking their neighbouring countries and their own citizens to donate? WTF... Utter Bull Shit >.>
It's a natural phenominon, get over it. The worst thing about it is that now petrol prices have sky rocketed, I mean, more people died in the boxing day tsunami >.>
-
I simply dislike the summary judgment being passed on the city of New Orleans. I've heard more than one person say, in real life, that the city got what it had coming to it considering all the hedonistic activity that thrives there. Tell me, then, why the French Quarter remained high and dry? And you cannot simply label every impoverished person a worthless human being.
-
Exactly, if that were true, then Las Vegas would be a burning pile of ash...not to mention some of the shadier places in the world...I'm looking at you Amsterdam (because I want to visit you!)...
As I may have said before, they got what they deserve for living in the path of annual hurricanes...I feel bad for the pets :cry:
-
Look, It's America.. The richest country and most powerful in the world. And from a little hurricane, they're asking their neighbouring countries and their own citizens to donate? WTF... Utter Bull Shit
I don't recall Bush asking for aid. Other countries offered it of their own free will.
-
Lessing the UN's influence on out country.
Wait, was that a good thing? Honestly, as a Canadian, I was most distressed when the US decided to act not only unilaterally, but openly against the will of the UN - in fact, I was wondering at that moment if it would not lead to the near fall of the UN, and near on its heels half of world order. As much as one country might think themselves to be right, they cannot simply act alone like that. Whether or not the US should have invaded is to me beside the point: that they invaded without the consent of the UN was wrong, and put world order in jeporday, thus a very selfish move. There are higher laws than those of a country, and these are dictated by the UN. What the US did was nothing short of being a vigilante - and that is illegal. Someone in their 'family' got killed and, whilst the police said 'don't do anything, we're working on it' they went out, got a gun, and killed the one responsable - along with some innocent members of his family along the way ('he' being Iraq as a whole - not all of them were terrorists, after all.) The point is, as a Canadian, I saw what the US did in that to be one of the stupidest acts of bravado and selfishness of the last hundred years. The League of Nations failed - do they want the same to happen to the UN, just so they can do whatever they wish, and be their own law? Such actions are the first step into attempting to forge an empire, you know.
Anyway, as you know, I generally agree with you. But as a foreigner looking at the US' foreign affairs from an outside perspective, it left me a little unsettled. In fact, that move rattled me more than the September 11th attacks: it showed that the UN was essentially ineffective if a country wished to bully its way into doing what it wanted. What, now, would stop the US from becoming an empire?
-
Whether or not the US should have invaded is to me beside the point: that they invaded without the consent of the UN was wrong
Why is it wrong? The UN has no legitimacy in any way. MOST of the members do not have democratic governments, and thus are NOT representative of the peoples of their countries, and even the ones that do, it's one vote PER COUNTRY, not per capita voting. So the power is NOT from the people. It is self-appointed, which is NOT legitimate.
I can understand how this could be confusing to a Canadian though, as the media and government continually try and convince you that you have been "granted" rights by THEM, and not them given power by YOU. They try and reinforce this at every turn, so I'm not suprised you have been taken in on more levels than JUST Canada's government, but you take that for the world too.
Why is the UN a "stamp of legitimacy" to you? It's a dictator's society that a few legits happen to be in as well.
The League of Nations failed - do they want the same to happen to the UN
Actually I do. As I said above, the UN is completely corrupt and something that should have been abandoned the minute they gave Communist China a seat on the Security Council.
And remember the League of Nations failed because the USA was not there, AND they were impotent in preventing WWII. They were never a true power influencing world order, only an opinionated debate club. And so is the UN. It SHOULD fail the same way.
it showed that the UN was essentially ineffective if a country wished to bully its way into doing what it wanted.
EXACTLY. The ONLY reason the UN had any semblance of authority was the guns backing it up, primarily from the US, Great Britian, etc. Once they disagree with the direction the UN goes, the UN is useless, and is merely used to smuggle money into dictator's pockets (and the families of officials, like Kofi Annan's son).
What, now, would stop the US from becoming an empire?
Their own citizens, which since the collapse of the USSR was the only thing. And it was enough. And the US people don't WANT an empire. They want self-determination only. This only means extending influence when somebody ELSE can screw them over. After the elimination of their enemies, they'd be just as happy to let everybody else go fuck themselves without lifting a finger. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!! (including Canada, which like you I'm a citizen of)
-
Ah, it's conservative versus conservative! Where's my caviar? I'll sit back and watch.
Edit: But, in all seriousness, one world government is the inevitable destiny of the human species, provided we don't blow ourselves to smithereens first. The UN had a chance at being the framework for that, once upon a time. It was as much the rabid contempt of xenophobic ultraconservatives as it was the corruption of two-bit despots that wasted that beautiful potential. Shame on them, and shame on you too, Eriol. Sometimes, if your voice is loud enough, or your fists solid enough, you can make your prophecies self-fulfilling.
-
Well, since its Daniel, a fellow conservative, I believe I can talk about my UN beliefs without someone getting ticked off.
Firstly, we must examine what the Leadership of a Country is responisble for. The leadership is responsible for bettering their people, and strengthing it's people. It is not responisble for strengthening other people, unless by doing so strengthens its own people.
There is nothing within the US Consitution, the supreame ruling document of this country, that says we must work with other countrys for the betterment of the world, rather than betterment of the single nation. As America stands in the world today, its the only super power left, with China as a rising semi-super power as of this moment.
The UN is a basically where little tiny dictatorships meet up, and try and influence other countries. I believe its idealistic to say that the UN works for the betterment of the entire world, which you seem to believe. The UN is a tool used by weak countries for a unproportional share of power. They vote for whats in the best intrest of their country.
As it stands today, the rest of the world stands to gain, if the US looses power. The US is our own soverign nation, not a member of a world governing league. The less influence other nations has on this country, the more independant and free this country will be from the rest of the world.
Not to mention that the UN is worthless without the US, since we are just about all its muscle. Plus the UN is a cowardly organization (only took one bomb in Iraq for them to run). Plus, it is so very corrupt. Refer to the Oil for Food schandal.
And those are my thoughts. Enjoy.
-
I'm immortal. Besides, Japan has treaties and political loopholes I can take advantage of.
Anyway, if you feel so strongly about human lives, fine. But I don't. There's too many of us, and A lot of humanity is taking from society without giving back. They're parasites who are bringing chips of the Earth down with them. We're all going to die eventually. What's the big deal? It's not that there are MORE people dying, it's that they're all dying in one specific area and it's on the news.
Overinflated ego... check.
Disregard for human life... check.
Lack of differentiation between forms of dying... check.
Chance of turning into a mass-murderer if given the chance: frighteningly high.
Alright, a couple of notes on the UN and the roles of nations:
First of all, WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!? How the hell is an American life more valuable than an Iraqi life? Do you realize that if every country only did what was best for their own, we would be significantly worse off overall? Should the US nuke every nation on earth that has oil but no nukes of their own, just so they won't have to pay for the oil? The whole in the ozone layer is over Australasia now, right? So, why should we care if we cause it to expand by polluting the atmosphere? It's cheaper, afterall.
We're all human, people! Get off your ****ing high-horse of being American or Japanese or Canadian or whatever. You're human. You're a citizen of Earth, so act like it for once. Do what's best for your own people: humans. Stop holding to arbitrary lines between them, or you'll only hurt yourself in the end.
.
.
.
Sorry, but people can be so short-sighted sometimes. The urge to browbeat is sometimes insurmountable.
-
I'm immortal. Besides, Japan has treaties and political loopholes I can take advantage of.
Anyway, if you feel so strongly about human lives, fine. But I don't. There's too many of us, and A lot of humanity is taking from society without giving back. They're parasites who are bringing chips of the Earth down with them. We're all going to die eventually. What's the big deal? It's not that there are MORE people dying, it's that they're all dying in one specific area and it's on the news.
Overinflated ego... check.
Disregard for human life... check.
Lack of differentiation between forms of dying... check.
Chance of turning into a mass-murderer if given the chance: frighteningly high.
Alright, a couple of notes on the UN and the roles of nations:
First of all, WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!? How the hell is an American life more valuable than an Iraqi life? Do you realize that if every country only did what was best for their own, we would be significantly worse off overall? Should the US nuke every nation on earth that has oil but no nukes of their own, just so they won't have to pay for the oil? The whole in the ozone layer is over Australasia now, right? So, why should we care if we cause it to expand by polluting the atmosphere? It's cheaper, afterall.
We're all human, people! Get off your ****ing high-horse of being American or Japanese or Canadian or whatever. You're human. You're a citizen of Earth, so act like it for once. Do what's best for your own people: humans. Stop holding to arbitrary lines between them, or you'll only hurt yourself in the end.
.
.
.
Sorry, but people can be so short-sighted sometimes. The urge to browbeat is sometimes insurmountable.
Leebot, you've proven to be one of the only voices of reason here. I'm glad to see that some people here understand the weight of what is happening, and is not taking a scarily deconstructive view towards it (AuraTwilight).
-
Leebot, I'll keep my nation-state, thank you very much. I don't care what the hell the rest of the world does, as long as it doesn't threaten me. And if it does, I better hope my government will do something about it. Get over your want for a World Government...!
Damnit, you see, this is what I didn't want to get into!
-
Human beings are stupid.. And when I say that, I include myself. We can't do anything right, we have laws that have loopholes in them, but are the most important laws. Our governments only care about money, and getting their way. Can't wait till 2012 (when the world ends thanks to the Mayan prophecy) or 2060 (when God casts Earth into flames - Isaac Newton predicted this from reading the bible) or 3797/3979 (forgot which one) when the Earth will completely be destroyed thanks to Nostradamus' predictions.
-
Human beings are stupid.. And when I say that, I include myself. We can’t do anything right, we have laws that have loopholes in them, but are the most important laws. Our governments only care about money, and getting their way. Can’t wait till 2012 (when the world ends thanks to the Mayan prophecy) or 2060 (when God casts Earth into flames - Isaac Newton predicted this from reading the bible) or 3797/3979 (forgot which one) when the Earth will completely be destroyed thanks to Nostradamus’ predictions.
This is what you're talking about killing off: A group of homo sapiens captured on film in their native habitat (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/photogalleries/nationworld745/14.html)
I’d just as soon humanity not kill itself off. But all those clamoring for it are welcome to cull themselves for great justice. We’d be better off with fewer fatalist cynics.
For as stupid as people can sometimes be, stupidity is not the hallmark of humanity. It is our intelligence that sets us apart, and our creative, rational minds are the spice of the Earth. Our accomplishments of science and art, and literature, and engineering, and philosophy, are unprecedented in the history of the world, and perhaps are unique. Even our innate physical abilities, when they are not being repressed by government or some religious authority, are a source for pleasures both subtle and gross, and the fantastic natural world in which we live grants us opportunities of every stripe.
Something of that wonderment gets lost in a conventional political discussion. Here we are gadabouting the message boards of a video game that has touched all of us in some meaningful way, and yet we continually ignore the importance of reaching up from beyond the mundane into a better, higher way of thinking. I just want to slap people who don’t see that. To me it’s so obvious. ZeaLitY too, in his own way, recognizes some part of this, through his dedication to this place. But we are social creatures, and our setting often defines us. So more often, I find myself here arguing with nationalists who can’t see beyond their own flag, conservative dead-enders who hate everything beautiful and good within our culture, and religious thugs who think pleasure is a sin and guilt is the essence of our species.
Many of these types are kids; their enmity is more rehearsed than it is genuine. Like AuraTwilight’s comment about people deserving to die. I was a kid too, once. I had quite a similar thought before I smartened up, so I can be more forgiving than most. If people do deserve to die, contrary to Leebot’s well-intentioned but overly idealistic plea for peace on Earth and good will toward everyone, poverty is not a good way to decide that, nor is the fact that some folks live in a city below sea level and prone to tropical storms.
And then there’s Eriol’s comment about the UN losing its soul the minute it gave “Communist China” a seat on the Security Council. By the way he says it, you can tell he’s so young he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. Some television or pastor told him what to think, and kids will do it. China is such a wonderful country; a competitor to the United States but a very beautiful place, with wonderful people and fascinating customs. They are as good, and as flawed a people as we are. And they are a powerful country, even more so today. They deserve that Council seat.
In these rare moments, where someone like you, Zaperking, makes a comment so stupid that all of us can realize just how stupid we too have been to participate in such petty, pointless bickering, I can remind myself that the wonders of the world are where our attention ought to lie. I hate to sound sappy, but we’ve gotten away from the Chrono spirit here. Humanity does not deserve to be destroyed, unless we ourselves act as the agents of our demise. And I for one will have no part in that.
What is that Magus quote that so many of you seem to love?
If history is to change, let it change.
If the world is to be destroyed, so be it.
If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.
That’s precisely the kind of thinking that’ll get us all killed. Suppose we follow Sentenal’s advice and spit on the rest of the world? Is that really in our national interest, like he says? No. That sort of misbehavior destroys the nations who practice it, especially in these ever-globalizing times. Or suppose we listen to your advice, Zaper, and wait around until we kill ourselves off? Didn’t it occur to you that believing we’ll all kill ourselves off might actually help make it come true, by our actions and motives? Or suppose we listen to nightmare975, praising certain leaders blindly and following our ideology as though it were infallible? I keep remembering how many people in the 2004 United States presidential election insisted to the news reporters who interviewed them that, although they disagreed with President Bush on the issues, they liked that he stands his ground rather than changing his mind. I saw a political cartoon shortly before the election. Kerry and Bush are driving in two separate cars down a highway. Kerry is fumbling over a map, explaining some long, complicated detour that will eventually get them to where they’re going. So why isn’t he just going straight ahead, like Bush? Bush is driving full speed ahead through a warning blockade “Bridge Out Ahead”. And where our leader goes, we have been sure to follow. The country and the whole world is in distress. Are we being patted on the head for our dutiful loyalty to George Bush? No. It just gets worse and worse with this guy. Yet he still has a loyal core, who will follow him to the ends of the Earth—to where Bush is certainly intent on going (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html). And, so, if his username is any indication, I think I know how nightmare975 sleeps at night.
Political involvement is a basic form of literacy. It is just as important as knowing how to read, because politics in the abstract sense is what shapes our world. And understanding how that works is a sure route to personal awareness. Politics is not a synonym for corruption and depravity, and governments are not innately awful. These cynical stereotypes are a function of powerless people who wish to go on being powerless. What do I mean by that? I mean that many people resign themselves to a less ideal world by blaming their ills on “powers that be” whom they feel they can never touch. Thus the ills continue. This ties back to your comment, Zaperking, that all humans are stupid, and that we can’t do anything right. That’s patently false. We are an imperfect species, growing up with no parents and no guidelines. Sheer chance gave us the opportunity to make something of ourselves, and bring a little self-awareness to the world. The dream of the human race, expressed vividly in the floating Kingdom of Zeal, is a long way in coming. And the fact that Mr. Kato and his team decided to put that paradise in the human past, is a potent reminder that our sense of entitlement is guaranteed only by our eternal vigilance. No one will save us if we fall. And the higher we become, the further we have to fall, and the longer it will take to restore what was. We are stupid in the sense that we have so much left to learn, and that so many of us cling to ignorant delusions, but we are not stupid in the pejorative sense that you used. Many times I think the world could come to its senses in a single night, if only people realized that, in all its full ramifications.
Daniel Krispin, like many fire-and-brimstone Christians, says we are dragging the world slowly to its doom, and I’d like to prove him wrong despite all his efforts and those of his ilk, by building a civilization that will last beyond the imagination of mortal humankind, with each generation able to seek out its own, unique paradise. I’ll bet you never figured that paradise can exist right here, right now, but you’d have been wrong. Every time we encounter a deeply satisfying moment, for however short or long a blink of the eye it may last, we are within such a fabled place.
In those moments, and in the unwavering ambition to seek out paradise in all its forms and beyond every horizon, and therein pursue the one true Paradise, with a capital P, I thankfully enjoy a moment of repose from the sheer puerile inanity of petty political bickering. It puts this whole thread and our other discussions here into their proper perspective. The world is so much more contenting, when you can see it for what it truly is. And every blunder every human being has ever made, is but a thin slick of oil atop the very deepest ocean. This is a fine world, and we are a fine part of it. I hope you someday find the imagination to agree with me.
-
Is there any specific good human act and/or creation that equals in good the specific badness of, say, what Hitler did?
-
Is there any specific good human act and/or creation that equals in good the specific badness of, say, what Hitler did?
If you're looking for something that stands out as starkly and suddenly as the Holocaust, except represents a human feat of good rather than one of evil, the problem is that the good acts preserve or improve people's quality of life, or expand it to more people, and this is less noticeable than an enormous body count. So if I speak of things like the invention of mains power or pasteurization, or the construction of the Panama Canal or the Delta Project, or the publication of the Magna Carta, or the 1st, 15th, or 19th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, or the fight against Apartheid in South Africa, or the creation of the big labor unions, or the big industries that preceded them, or the broader Age of Enlightenment, or Home Rule in Ireland, or the foundation of the Library at Alexandria, or Octavian's victory over Antony and Cleopatra in Alexandria on land and at sea in 30 B.C., or the Marshall Plan, or the development of a printing press, or any of these other things...there is no question that all of these greatly preserved, improved, or expanded the quality of life for countless people. But whether or not you can bring yourself to acknowledge these above the raw emotional obscenity of the Holocaust, is up to you.
Addendum: If you try to weigh humanity's worth in terms of what we have already accomplished, rather than what our potential is as a sentient species, you are bound to fail. You will certainly conclude that humanity is a barbarian race of savages who slaughter one another over tribal god images and luxuriate themselves at the expense of their own kind and the health of the world. Only the truest of optimists would look at the human past and say, "There is good here." And yet it is not the human past that interests me, but the human future. Civilization has steadily liberalized--in horrific fits and spurts--since its very inception. Every generation faces the threat of destruction by its own elements, and by the dubious inheritances of history, and yet we have always managed to overcome our own weaknesses, sometimes in the course of days, and sometimes across the generations. All the good acts in human history combined are worth less than the single image of what we may yet accomplish.
-
Is there any specific good human act and/or creation that equals in good the specific badness of, say, what Hitler did?
Laughter.
<.<
>.>
Oh wait, that outweighs it. What other species on earth knows the joy of humor? Aside from orgasm, it's the only innately pleasurable act that exists. People tend to think there's less good in the world because the huge good acts stand out less than the huge bad acts.
I could get into more, but I'm just going to leave at this: Humor is the ultimate achievement of humanity.
...Leebot’s well-intentioned but overly idealistic plea for peace on Earth and good will toward everyone...
Oh yeah, I know that human beings are imperfect, and it will make this incredibly difficult to achieve. But that doesn't take away from the fact that no one aims for the circle outside the bullseye. If you want people to change, preach the virtues of the perfect, in hopes that people will at the very least work their way up.
The dream of the human race, expressed vividly in the floating Kingdom of Zeal...
I'm not arguing with your point here, but with the metaphor. Even Zeal isn't perfect. Leaving aside consorting with Lavos, the Earthbound were shunned and treated as less than human. Zeal was, in the end, a nation that rose itself up without raising others as well (it wasn't bad enough that it had to tear others down, at least). And then, it fell due to its own faults.
-
And then there’s Eriol’s comment about the UN losing its soul the minute it gave “Communist China” a seat on the Security Council. By the way he says it, you can tell he’s so young he doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. Some television or pastor told him what to think, and kids will do it. China is such a wonderful country; a competitor to the United States but a very beautiful place, with wonderful people and fascinating customs. They are as good, and as flawed a people as we are. And they are a powerful country, even more so today. They deserve that Council seat.
You missed the point, but that's OK. No less than I expect from you. And no, I'm not young either.
The point was that they didn't merely GIVE China a seat, they TOOK IT AWAY from the only democracy that represented China: Taiwan. And subsequently the tyranny that is China has done everything possible to get NOBODY to recognize Taiwan's right to exist, or even recognize it as more than a rogue province that is China's right to govern (read supress).
And they hardly lost their soul there. The UN had done that from the moment of it's inception by giving the USSR a seat in an organization that valued "democracy". And every time since then they let a dictator in, they went further and further down the wrong path.
Sure everything else you said about china is relatively true (not everything is rosy), but when dealing internationally you almost never have the luxury of dealing with the people and the government seperately. A shame, but true.
-
The dream of the human race, expressed vividly in the floating Kingdom of Zeal...
I'm not arguing with your point here, but with the metaphor. Even Zeal isn't perfect. Leaving aside consorting with Lavos, the Earthbound were shunned and treated as less than human. Zeal was, in the end, a nation that rose itself up without raising others as well (it wasn't bad enough that it had to tear others down, at least). And then, it fell due to its own faults.
An imperfect dream is tomorrow's bedrock for a more perfect dream. Zeal was a paradise before it became corrupted by Lavos, a stunning achievement of human ambition and dedication. And argue that all human acts since the touching of the Frozen Flame are impure, argue that if you must, but it is as dubious a piece of logic as the doctrine of original sin. The power of a rational human being is with the clarity of the mind's eye.
We can take any number of lessons from the destruction of Zeal...but the notion that we are doomed by our very nature, is not one of them.
-
Yeah, I just couldn't think of anything...Specific inventions didn't seem right...but I suppose there are some, like antiseptics, to delve into Donnie Darko :P Go soap!
I dunno about laughter though...Hyena's laugh...but I suppose you mean humor? I mean, I know laughing is nice 'n' all...but does it help do anything? I mean, if you're sad, does laughing stop your sadness?
Alright, I can already tell this is getting into absurd territory...So, I'm gonna stop now...
-
Yeah, I just couldn't think of anything...Specific inventions didn't seem right...but I suppose there are some, like antiseptics, to delve into Donnie Darko :P Go soap!
I dunno about laughter though...Hyena's laugh...but I suppose you mean humor? I mean, I know laughing is nice 'n' all...but does it help do anything? I mean, if you're sad, does laughing stop your sadness?
Alright, I can already tell this is getting into absurd territory...So, I'm gonna stop now...
Not absurd, just really philosophical. Forgetting about religious arguments for the moment, we really have to decide what should really be considered good. What you're describing there, "does laughing stop your sadness?" is avoiding pain, and that's part of it. But it isn't all. If it were, the ultimate act of good would be to simultaneously nuke all of humanity so they would experience no more pain.
The other have of the equation is to maximize pleasure. We've evolved, fortunately enough, so that certain acts are pleasurable, and so that we can get into a happy state of mind. If we couldn't find this, there would be absolutely no point to our continued existence.
As I sometimes put it: When you boil it down, pleasure is pleasurable, and pain is painful. Every other action we take should derive from that.
And the hyena's laugh isn't really based out of humor, it's just a survival tactic. As far as we know, no other animal knows humor. Some have shown other behaviors normally thought to apply only to humans--such as playing, which you'll see in dogs, dolphins, and even octopi. Granted, I'm still not ruling out a lot of other sentient traits in dolphins. It was seen remarkably during the Tsunami last year that a lot of domesticated animals would act to protect humans, who they had been trained to love. But in addition to this, wild dolphins somehow identified humans on ships and guided them out to safer waters. They acted in a fundamentally moral manner, helping out perfect strangers for no gain of their own.
Gotta love the dolphins!
-
As I sometimes put it: When you boil it down, pleasure is pleasurable, and pain is painful. Every other action we take should derive from that.!
This is the central utilitarian guideline, and also its essential flaw. To whom does this doctrine apply? If we apply it to individuals, well, it just so happens that I'd probably feel pretty good about shooting Bill O'Reilly right now, but I'll bet you he wouldn't. Conversely, if we apply it to societies, then individuals on their own become worthless in the name of the greater good. To whom does this doctrine apply, for it to succeed in its intent?
The conflict between "do no harm" and "seek pleasure but avoid pain" rests on the fact that people's own definitions of pain and pleasure are often mutually exclusive from one another. (That's why I mentioned Paradise with a capital P in my little essay earlier; it implies a hypothetical state where no one's paradise treads on anyone else's.)
So how do we get around this minor problem, Mr. Guru of Time? Is the flaw with utilitarianism one that can be solved?
-
Suppose we follow Sentenal’s advice and spit on the rest of the world? Is that really in our national interest, like he says? No.
Sentenal would like to clarify. I did not mean to spit on the rest of the world. This is what I ment: We let the rest of the world do its thing, unless it threatens us doing our thing. Live and let live, as long as its mutual. Thats not spitting on the rest of the world, thats doing what the rest of the world wants; less American envolvment.
-
Absurd...Philosophical...Absurdly Philosophical...Same difference 8)
-
Ermmm hmm, yea I don't really watch the news much, so only the really big stuff like his 9/11 and Katrina help is all I really know about. damn byast news networks.
-
Suppose we follow Sentenal’s advice and spit on the rest of the world? Is that really in our national interest, like he says? No.
Sentenal would like to clarify. I did not mean to spit on the rest of the world. This is what I ment: We let the rest of the world do its thing, unless it threatens us doing our thing. Live and let live, as long as its mutual. Thats not spitting on the rest of the world, thats doing what the rest of the world wants; less American envolvment.
Ie. isolationist, how America was before WWI. Is that what you mean?
-
'Live & let live' could be interpreted as 'lend a helping hand'.
-
Suppose we follow Sentenal’s advice and spit on the rest of the world? Is that really in our national interest, like he says? No.
Sentenal would like to clarify. I did not mean to spit on the rest of the world. This is what I ment: We let the rest of the world do its thing, unless it threatens us doing our thing. Live and let live, as long as its mutual. Thats not spitting on the rest of the world, thats doing what the rest of the world wants; less American envolvment.
Ie. isolationist, how America was before WWI. Is that what you mean?
Yes, although America didn't have as many intrests then as it does now. So isolationist, but not as much as then, as we still have assets around the world, such as Israel.
-
We also have a transnational economy intertwined with nearly every country on Earth, vitally so with several dozen. Isolationism doctrine is a very coarse denial of what makes this country prosper. We must interact with the outside world, and so it becomes a question not of whether to make these interactions, but how to go about them.
-
As I sometimes put it: When you boil it down, pleasure is pleasurable, and pain is painful. Every other action we take should derive from that.!
This is the central utilitarian guideline, and also its essential flaw. To whom does this doctrine apply? If we apply it to individuals, well, it just so happens that I'd probably feel pretty good about shooting Bill O'Reilly right now, but I'll bet you he wouldn't. Conversely, if we apply it to societies, then individuals on their own become worthless in the name of the greater good. To whom does this doctrine apply, for it to succeed in its intent?
The conflict between "do no harm" and "seek pleasure but avoid pain" rests on the fact that people's own definitions of pain and pleasure are often mutually exclusive from one another. (That's why I mentioned Paradise with a capital P in my little essay earlier; it implies a hypothetical state where no one's paradise treads on anyone else's.)
So how do we get around this minor problem, Mr. Guru of Time? Is the flaw with utilitarianism one that can be solved?
Easily! Just pretend you're the government and deny any evidence that there's a flaw at all!
...
Okay, seriously. The problem here comes with being shortsighted, again. In the end, if everybody gives weight to the pleasures of others, each person's individual pleasure gets even higher.
But then person A says: Wait! But I can get +1 Pleasure if I give person B +2 Pain! What have I got to lose? So, person A is at +1 overall happiness, person B at -2.
Then person B says: You know what? I can do that too! He even deserves it, the bastard. So, he goes right back and gives person A +2 pain, gaining +1 pleasure.
In the end, persons A and B are both at -1 overall happiness, and both probably wish that in retrospect this incident had never happened.
This is an oversimplification, but the message is valid: Generally, when you gain some pleasure at the expense of another, you gain less value than they lose, harming the sum happiness of humanity. Your behavior then encourages others to do the same back, and you end up becoming a victim as well.
Thus, if everyone puts themself first in the short-term, everyone ends up worse off in the long-term.
-
Thus, if everyone puts themself first in the short-term, everyone ends up worse off in the long-term.
What you have stated is true up to this point: short-sightedness always ends up bad whether you are working purely for yourself, or even if you are TRYING to do good. So short-sightedness is ALWAYS bad.
But being selfish, even IN THE LONG RUN is bad. And while those bad effects will take that much longer to materialize, they ALWAYS will. Working purely in your own self-interest (even if your definition of "self" expands outside oneself to encompass others) will result in a bad result eventually.
Only being selfLESS will produce good results. Doing what is best for the good of all, even at the LONG-TERM expense of self well-being. This is the key difference between selfish long-term and selfless long-term. The both will sacrifice in the short term, as that is almost always necessary from either perspective, but the selfish one in the long-term will NEVER completely sacrifice themselves for the good of all, and thus their results will always be tainted.
-
That's interesting, Eriol. You should read Ayn Rand. While I don't agree with her philosophical bent, she makes the best arguments I've ever read in favor of individualism. From there it isn't a far philosophical jaunt to make legitimate attacks on selflessness and altruism, which are heavily overrated in our time. In any case, I haven't got the time to get into this today, but do check out one of her books, like Atlas Shrugged. You might appreciate her heinously anti-liberal message. =)
-
I have to admit this... War is interesting.....
I remember the day that War officially started in Iraq, at 12 noon our time. The moment the clock turned to noon, everyone just stood there in silence.... and then started going "OMG WE'RE GONA DIE!" and everyone was running around for no reason, but it was fun ^.^
-
You should read Ayn Rand.
God, Ann Rand made me hate reading. :x
-
You should read Ayn Rand.
God, Ann Rand made me hate reading. :x
I hear ya. I hated reading her. But she has some very powerful lessons to teach. It's a necessary experience.
-
You should read Ayn Rand.
God, Ann Rand made me hate reading. :x
I hear ya. I hated reading her. But she has some very powerful lessons to teach. It's a necessary experience.
You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!
-
You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!
You mean the U.S. Declaration of Independence? 8)
-
You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!
You mean the U.S. Declaration of Independence? 8)
No, an Ann Rand "book" is you can call them that. Torture devices is more like it.
-
You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!
You mean the U.S. Declaration of Independence? 8)
Wow heh...last year in my school we had to do an analysis and report about the Decleration, and I completely know what you mean :lol: .
-
You read the one about the people who are all "we"? I can't remember the name. I read it in 15 minutes. I want those 15 minute back!
You mean the U.S. Declaration of Independence? 8)
Wow heh...last year in my school we had to do an analysis and report about the Decleration, and I completely know what you mean :lol: .
LOL, I don't think you do, and I don't think nightmare975 did either! :D I was just going after the obvious the people are we = we the people joke.
-
Helping Katrina victims? The military shot down a 16yr old blak kid who was stealing food. Oh wow, the black people are stealing food. so are the white guys. But they make it seem that the black people are criminals (once again) the people who are stealing TV's, now they ARE idiots, for they cant even use them, and they will be wighing them down.
food can be replaced by insurance. lives cant
-
Demicratic news station are saying that. The demicrats just denying it so they will get more votes for the election in 2008
-
Demicratic news station are saying that. The demicrats just denying it so they will get more votes for the election in 2008
Demicrats? Is that a subtle pun or a delicious irony? Anyhow, I'm not sure what you think the "Demicratic news station" are, but they're obviously not broadcasting in this country. Are you Republicans really so paranoid that it isn't enough for you to already control the White House, the United States Congress, the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary, the majority of states' governorships, the religious establishment, the mainstream media, the military, and Corporate America? Geez...blame the Dems anyway, eh? Get over it.
-
I'm not sure what you think the "Demicratic news station" are
CNN
-
I'm not sure what you think the "Demicratic news station" are
CNN
Like to provide some proof with that claim?
-
CNN= Clinton News Network.
Clinton= Bill Clinton=Democrat.
-
You know that's merely a joke, right?
CNN = Cable News Network.
-
I'd like it to be not. :P
-
the mainstream media
Since when is the main stream media on Bush's side? The way they pushed the Bush National Guard "story", yet down played the Swift Boat Vetrans is clear proof of left wing biased. On most national news networks.
-
I'm not sure what you think the "Demicratic news station" are
CNN
Not even...not even close. Maybe to something like Rush Limbaugh, CNN has a “Demicratic” bent. But from a nonpartisan perspective, CNN and most of the mainstream media in general suffer from a ratings-driven cultural pandering phenomenon that causes them to behave sympathetically toward the Christian right, and, by extension, the administration.
As you know, the media are supposed to be objective. In journalism there is the notion of a wall between news and opinion, and the strength of this wall is the signature of journalistic integrity. In a proper piece of objective journalism, you’ll get the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts. You’ll never hear the word “I,” and you’ll never get a spun story. There is no slant, framing, and no bias. Story angles are never used to advance an agenda. I have to hand it to the Fox News advertisers, because their two slogans, “Fair and Balanced” and “We Report, You Decide,” when taken together, capture the essence of what journalism is supposedly all about. And although Fox itself is a brazenly unethical racquet, with no operational respect for the wall between news and opinion, its viewers are drawn to the idea of journalistic objectivity. (That they also enjoy Fox’s conservative slant alongside this is a testament to their own integrity, but that is a discussion for another time.)
However, the wall between news an opinion is far from the everyday truth of news reporting. Every step of the news production process is another pressure on the wall of objectivity. Let’s talk about CNN, since that’s the network you mentioned:
First you have to decide which stories you’re going to cover. There is always more news than there is time or space to report it. So you have to pick the stories that are most important. Sometimes, the biggest bias in news is the stories that never get told at all. CNN did this yesterday. There were two big stories that day, one of them being Hurricane Rita and the other being an antiwar protest. Hurricane Rita was big news for obvious reasons, but the antiwar protest was big news not only because it was the largest protest in Washington D.C. since before the war even started back in 2003, and not only because D.C. was but the flagship of simultaneous antiwar demonstrations in New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, London, Paris, Rome, Madrid, and elsewhere around the globe, but also because the majority of public opinion in the Iraq war has finally turned against the war, and especially against the administration’s handling of it. So the protests happened, and in Washington D.C., hundreds of thousands of people showed up. It was a very big deal indeed. But you wouldn’t have realized that by watching CNN, where the entire story got very little exposure. Instead, CNN used the hurricane as a convenient excuse to almost bury the other story. On their website, they didn’t even publish an in-house story. Instead they used the AP wire. So where were their reporters? Many of them were standing in a raincoat in Texas telling us “It’s windy!” But many more of them were dispatched elsewhere, rather than to the antiwar rallies. That’s journalistic bias, and, incidentally, it’s a bias very convenient to the Bush administration and to those in America who still support the war. On CNN’s website, they didn’t bother producing an in-house story at all. Instead, they just ran the AP wire report, found here (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/24/antiwar.ap/index.html). That’s pretty brazen journalistic bias.
Once you’ve decided which stories you’re going to cover, next you have to decide how you’re going to cover them. This is called choosing the angle of the story. The angle is a way of presenting the news so as to demonstrate why it is newsworthy. For instance, one good angle in which to present yesterday’s simultaneous worldwide antiwar demonstrations would have been to point out that these protests are a byproduct of the increasing unpopularity of the war, especially here at home. But choosing an angle is one of the easiest steps of the news production process in which to introduce journalistic bias. CNN, in the limited coverage it gave to the protests, did not choose this angle. Instead, it chose the angle that the war protesters were a motley bunch who had grown disgruntled at the American casualties. The angle focused heavily on families of soldiers who had died, and presented the war as a good idea that had gone bad. The article even mentioned one Republican in the crowd who was against the war, but still supported Bush on everything else. Yes, my friends, CNN found a way to praise Bush in an antiwar article. If that’s not bias, nothing is. And what about the angle that I suggested? In fact, it wasn’t until eighteen paragraphs into the story that CNN even mentioned the simultaneous protest rallies being held elsewhere. Nowhere in the story at all was it mentioned that public opinion is now firmly against the war, or that, consequently, these rallies are now representative of the American mainstream.
After you have decided on an angle with which to present your story, you have to include the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts. This is crucial, because if you were to report the facts of a story selectively, by spinning key facts or leaving them out altogether, you would be presenting a biased story. But, sadly, this is oftentimes what the media do. For instance, sticking with the example of the CNN coverage of the antiwar protests yesterday, CNN completely failed to mention the underlying causes for public dissent against the war. First of all, there was no mention that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, which was the entire rationale for the war. Second of all, there was no mention of the fact that Iraq has become a terrorist state, responsible for creating and training tens of thousands of terrorists who did not exist in 2003. This is important because, after the WMDs didn’t turn up, Bush started saying that we actually went there to get rid of Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people. Well, what we have today is an Iraq where most people live with a raging insurgency. The post-invasion Iraqi casualties are in the tens of thousands, and the quality of life in much of Iraq is worse than it was two years ago. Third of all, there was no mention of the fact that Iraq is about to become an Islamic state. Bush promised left and right that the Iraqi people loved democracy, wanted democracy very badly, and to have a chance at freedom. Well, by golly, we gave it to them, and what did they do with it? Well, first they declared martial law, which is hardly a democratic way of life, but, more to the point, the Iraqi people elected a government that favors turning Iraq into an Islamic state, governed by Islamic law. Sharia, of course, is barbaric, and because it leads to the enslavement of the female half of the population, our war is therefore responsible for enslavement, rather than the liberation, of tens of millions of Iraqis. Furthermore, democracy doesn’t function under Islamic law, and in the years to come, barring an outright civil war, the entire Iraqi population in general will therefore be slowly pushed away from the secular freedoms enjoyed under Saddam and previous Iraqi leaders. Put all of this together, all of these facts that CNN failed to mention, and the public dissent against the Iraq war has very little context, and thus very little sense of legitimacy. CNN has consistently failed to point out the absurdity that Bush’s rationale for the war changes every time the previous rationale is discredited. CNN has consistently failed to point out that the antiwar movement was right all along. CNN has consistently failed to point out the fact that the aftermath of the war has gone to hell, and that our government is responsible for handling it so poorly. By leaving all of these facts out of the antiwar protest coverage, CNN makes it possible for war apologists to raise their voices and say “We got rid of Saddam; what are you complaining about?”
Anyhow, there you have it. Choosing the news stories, giving the stories and angle, and reporting all the facts: Those are the three institutional dangers to objective reporting, and, as you have seen, CNN has failed on every count just with this one story of yesterday’s protest demonstrations. These same failures are repeated in its general coverage.
However, beyond the institutional risks, there are other forms of news bias, some of which are even more maleficent. But before I get into those, let me explain to you the problem in mainstream news journalism in America today. The United States of America is becoming more conservative ideologically. The neoconservative movement controls the government, while the religious right has a firm grip on popular American sentiment. Neoconservatism is fast on the way to burning itself out, but this religious problem is very deeply rooted and isn’t going to go away anytime soon. Like a mob, as the religious right gains more power and more prominence, it becomes more vocal and more resentful of its ideological enemies. Its actions become more brazen, and its sphere of influence expands with increasing momentum. It is the religious right that has convinced mainstream Republicans that their way of life is under attack despite that the Republicans presently control everything—excepting CNN, whose addition to the list of “everything” is the present topic of discussion. This is a trademark evangelical tactic. One of the best ways to create a movement is to appeal to people’s inclination to root for the underdog. And when the people themselves become a part of that underdog, friend, that’s how you grow yourself a movement. You’ll see every radical Christian here on the Compendium, from Sentenal to Daniel Krispin, insist in one way or another that this so-called “vast left-wing conspiracy” is extremely powerful and very well-organized. Whether they realize it or not, they are contributing to that illusion by talking the talk, which is why I am sitting here on my Sunday evening writing about CNN. Ironically, they are the only ones who belong to anything even remotely resembling a vast conspiracy in this nation.
And so, the problem facing journalism today is that, even though many journalists themselves are liberal, the American people are not. Fox News found enormous success on cable in only a few short years, while the other news networks have suffered rations erosion. The companies who own the news media are controlled by conservative people, and so some liberals say that the bias in the news is the result of decisions passed down from corporate boardrooms. But I am not impressed by that line of thought. Certainly, that’s what happens at Fox News, but Fox is an anomaly in the mainstream media. I think the other big-name news organizations still try and follow that vaunted journalistic ideal of the wall between news and opinion, and, on the whole, I think they still respect the institution of journalism and the ethics of journalism.
But they have this problem of a conservative public who has turned against them by the manipulations of the powerful neoconservative and evangelical Christian movements. As a result, the media are desperate to appear impartial and avoid any appearance of bias against the conservative establishment. Not a day goes by when you don’t hear someone like Bill O’Reilly slander the “liberal mainstream media” on national television, and a lie repeated is a lie that sticks. Consequently, the news media believe that opposing these powerful conservative interests will erode their audiences rather than add to them. Thus, the media have no incentive to criticize conservative America.
Unfortunately, this isn’t occurring in a vacuum. Conservative America is egregiously abusing its power, stifling or reversing social progress (e.g., sexist birth control and abortion policies), trampling on human rights (e.g., prisoner abuse scandals), destroying the environment (e.g., the Clean Air Act), disenfranchising minorities (e.g., anti-gay marriage amendments), oppressing the poor (e.g., bankruptcy reform), bankrupting the nation (e.g., unchecked federal spending), mortgaging the future (e.g., social security privatization), repressing scientific advancement (e.g., stem-cell research ban), abandoning our children (e.g., No Child Left Behind), destroying the middle class (e.g., tax cuts for the rich), establishing Christianity as the official American religion (e.g., religious displays on public property with public money), antagonizing the rest of the world (e.g., economic hegemony), and ravaging entire nations (e.g., Iraq). In essence, the conservatives are slowly turning America into a third-world country on any topic you wish to name. But the news media, rather than hold their ground and follow the powerful journalism of the ‘60s and ‘70s, have abandoned some of their practical respect for impartial reporting and now devote very little attention to any of the things I mentioned, or any of the countless more I did not. Instead, they focus on the controversy surrounding an issue rather than the issue itself. And, of course, they devote a great deal of their energy to rubbish news—the talking heads, the pundits, the political analysis, the shouting boxes, and all that stuff that has nothing to do with real news. And, finally, they do a lot of what’s called “soft” news, which is to focus on stories that may feel nice but aren’t important, like a cat saved from a tree.
Yet, being still respectful of the institution of news journalism, they want to try and honor the ethics of impartial reporting. How do they reconcile that with a nation that is opposed to being offered impartial news?
So that’s the complete problem facing mainstream news journalism in America today. The religious right and the neoconservatives control everything there is to control, not least of which is popular opinion. Popular opinion disdains conventional journalism, especially in that it would be highly critical of conservative policy. Therefore, even though the media wants to be impartial, they have every incentive to slant the news in such a way that makes them more competitive in a conservative market.
Consequently, this problem manifests itself in the form of bizarre media coverage, which brings me to the allegation that CNN is a liberal bastion. Of course that’s loony, but it is true that there’s something “not quite right” about CNN and the other media. It follows from the inherent institutional obstacles to objective reporting that I mentioned earlier—choosing a story, giving it an angle, and including all the facts—but it also follows from other forms of bias.
I mentioned earlier that there are some other ways to slant the news, besides the three inherent institutional risks. These other “tactics,” let’s call them, can be either deliberate or unintentional, but in both cases they serve to bias the news. I want to talk about these, becomes in some ways they are even worse.
One such news-slanting tactic is to appear impartial by creating a false dichotomy in order to shift the focus of an issue. Personally, this is the one that bothers me the most. I am sick of the media tripping over themselves to appear impartial by treating every crackpot opinion as legitimate. How this works is pretty simple. Consider the evolution controversy. Academically, there is no controversy. Evolution is accepted science that has withstood a great deal of valid criticism for a very long time, and has emerged even stronger for it. But some Christians don’t like evolution because it discredits part of their religious mythology. So they fight against evolution, and a popular controversy breaks out. But the real controversy is the fact that Christians do not accept evolution theory as valid science, despite the fact that it is valid science.
However, due to their outspokenness, and due to the stick-together nature of Christianity in this country, these evolution naysayers have a very popular voice amongst the evangelical Christian right, and their viewpoint earns significant media coverage. But their point of view is not “We do not accept this valid science.” Obviously, that would put the issue to rest right then and there. Instead, they say “We do not accept this science as valid.” And the media reports this, and suddenly the controversy is shifted. Is evolution legitimate? Suddenly we’re not arguing whether the Christians are nuts for being opposed to the parts of science they don’t like. No, now we’re arguing if the science of evolution is correct. The tables have been turned in one fell swoop, without any regard to the underlying veracity of evolution theory itself.
That’s the thing about public opinion. It doesn’t matter what the truth is. What matters is what the public perceives that truth to be. That’s the underpinning flaw in democracy, and, unfortunately, in this case it has put the entire institution of science under siege by Christian nutcases who believe that biology should be based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. And the media helped make this possible, by, as I said earlier, treating the Christians’ crackpot opinion as legitimate.
Let’s take a look at CNN’s coverage of an upcoming evolution trial (http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/09/23/life.evolution.reut/index.html) in Philadelphia. Nowhere in the entire article does CNN say anything to the effect of “Some Christians oppose this valid science,” even though that’s where the true controversy rests. Instead, there’s a whole lot of he-said / she-said, and the controversy is painted as a conflict between a ragtag bunch of scientists and teachers who say that intelligent design violates the separation of church and state, and Christians who want a dubious scientific theory to share the spotlight with their own, much more well-thought-out “intelligent design” theory.
Only one paragraph in the entire story addresses the root controversy:
[The plaintiffs] also argue that intelligent design is unscientific and has no place in a science curriculum.
That’s it. That’s all the attention CNN gives to the true controversy beneath this issue.
And that brings me to the second news-slanting tactic that the media use to bias their reporting. In the case of this evolution story, notice how more paragraphs in the story are devoted to the Christian point of view, while most of those that favor the opposing viewpoint are framed weakly, ignoring the true controversy of Christians being against science, to instead focus in terms of the separation of church and state. This is a variation on the straw-man logical fallacy. The “correct” side of a debate is given more coverage, while the “incorrect” side is given not only less coverage, but weaker support. Take a look at this:
Number of pro-intelligent design paragraphs: 10
Number of anti-intelligent design paragraphs: 7
Number of neutral paragraphs: 3
“Neutral” paragraphs are those that present only factual information, without reporting on the opinions of those involved. But look at that…the pro-intelligent design coverage enjoys three more paragraphs than the other side. It’s a subtle trick, but it’s one that affects people’s perceptions heavily.
But more than just disproportionate coverage, the CNN article prints the Christian side’s best arguments, and some of the other side’s worst. Consider this particularly stirring emotional appeal by an intelligent design proponent:
Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute, which sponsors research on intelligent design, said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court.
"It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. "That is a flagrant assault on free speech."
The logical fallacy is that intelligent design is not a legitimate science. Scientists are not opposed to scientific discourse; they’re opposed to pseudo-science. But how forcefully is this rebuttal made?
"Intelligent design is ultimately a science stopper," said Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Council for Science Education, a pro-evolution group backing the Dover parents.
"It's a political and religious movement that's trying to insinuate itself into the public schools," she said.
That’s a very poor rebuttal! It lacks the eloquence of the other side’s statement, and it fails to label the intelligent design scheme as the anti-science bullshit that it is. If I were a reader of this article who had not had an opinion on the subject previously, I’d be more likely to side with the argument that is better-presented.
But CNN is not done enabling the Christian viewpoint in this. They also invoke the will of the American people—something they failed to do in their antiwar protest rally news story—and the authority of God:
But the American public appears to back the school district.
At least 31 states are taking steps to teach alternatives to evolution. A CBS poll last November found 65 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism as well as evolution while 37 percent want creationism taught instead of evolution.
Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.
Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.
Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict, said Darwin's theory did not clash with a belief in God so long as scientists did not assert that pure chance accounted for everything from "the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony."
And what is the anti-intelligent design rebuttal to these five straight paragraphs favoring the Christian side? There is none. The article ends there.
Not surprisingly—and I hope you’re still reading this, nightmare975—genuine liberals are very dismissive of CNN, and of the mainstream media in general. If you ask a run-of-the-mill liberal his or her favorite big-name news source, they’re more likely to say NPR or BBC. Very few would pick CNN. So, those who say that CNN is a liberal news organization, are not only ignoring the fact that it isn’t, but they are even ignoring the fact that liberals themselves do not flock to CNN for their news needs.
So, that’s two news-slanting tactics that the media use to bias their stories—creating a false dichotomy and using it to shift the debate in a preferred direction, and creating a straw-man argument that weakens one side of a debate by giving it less coverage and by less effectively reporting its viewpoint. There are many more tactics. Let me just touch on a few of them.
A popular neoconservative tactic, made famous by people like Karl Rove—who, admittedly, does not work for CNN—is to attack the critic without addressing the criticism itself. (Also called “killing the messenger.”) This is not as common in the mainstream media as it is within the right wing itself, and Fox News, but you do see it from time to time. I mention it, because this tactic is particularly effective when it does happen. If the argument shifts to the legitimacy of the critic rather than the legitimacy of the criticism itself, then the critic has already lost the debate.
One of CNN’s preferred tactics is to report the talking points of the conservative establishment—especially the government—rather than actually report the news. “Talking points,” for those of you who don’t know, are a type of bias that consolidate a larger piece of news into a quick nugget of information with a specific point of view. For instance, when Bush won reelection with a slim but definite majority of the vote in 2004, he said in a speech that he now has a great deal of “political capital,” a talking point which CNN has since used very often. His supporters also said that his win gives him a “mandate for conservatism,” another talking point that shows up in the media from time to time. Does Bush really have political capital and a mandate for conservatism? No, neither. He won with a slim majority, and the country remains sharply divided. He was given a mandate to govern, not a mandate to be a conservative. The chairman of the RNC has a mandate to be a conservative. The president has an obligation to the American people—even the ones from the blue states who did not vote for him. As much as he is my president, despite the fact that I voted against him twice, I am his constituent, despite the fact that he doesn’t much care for what I have to say. That’s how it works, and talking points be damned. Except, it’s easier said than done, when the media regurgitate those talking points so readily.
Another kind of news-slanting tactic is to distort a story with statistics. Getting back to that CNN article on evolution, the statistics it cited were not contrasted, for instance, with a statistic showing how many qualified biologists oppose evolution theory, or a statistic from a recent New York Times article indicating that 20 percent of all Americans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. Golly! As they say, you can use statistics to prove anything. 80 percent of people know that. (The other 20 percent believe that statistics revolve around the Earth and cause volcano eruptions.)
Of course, spin is also a tactic. I mentioned spin earlier when talking about including all the facts in a story. When the media spin their facts, they can distort the news. CNN, for instance, gave about the same coverage today to a pro-war rally as it gave to the antiwar rally yesterday. The only difference is that yesterday’s rally attracted hundreds of thousands of people and was accompanied by companion demonstrations all over the world, whereas today’s pro-war rally consisted of a couple hundred people in Washington D.C. only, which is barely newsworthy. People protest all the time; those couple hundred were only reported to spin yesterday’s antiwar demonstration. The purpose of the spin? To create the perception that the pro-war movement is alive and well. Alive and well? Bullshit! Reverse the words: “Well, it’s alive.” And that’s about all it is.
Let’s put all of this together and try to make a generalized statement from it. As I see it, the news media in this country are certainly biased. And I don’t think anyone who isn’t a spokesperson for those organizations would disagree with me. But biased liberally? CNN of all things? No. CNN, and the mainstream media in general, are not liberally biased. If anything, they are conservatively biased, but it would be much more accurate to say that they have a vested interest in not antagonizing conservative America, which is dominated by the neoconservatives and the religious right, because their ratings depend on the viewership of conservatives who don’t want to be told that their government is corrupt, who don’t want to be told that their religion is causing evil in society, and who don’t want to be told that liberals are not to blame for everything.
I’ve worked in journalism myself, and I’ve been an avid follower of the news for many years. Liberal news media include organizations like The Guardian and Air America Radio. Go check them out for yourself, and then compare them to CNN. Just because Fox News calls CNN liberal, does not make it true.
-
Do you seriously expect us to read that J? Like... damn!
-
Do you seriously expect us to read that J? Like... damn!
No, I suppose I don't. One or two people probably will read it, but no one's mind is going to be changed. I do this because it's the honorable thing to do, not because I expect to win people over. It is honorable to go on the record against hurtful lies, and check the brazenness of those who would tell these lies. And make no mistake; the right wing in America puts a lot of energy into vilifying the left wing as having this vast conspiracy going on. Claiming that CNN is a liberal mouthpiece is just another facet of that lie. The truth is a war with many fronts, and the unfortunate reality of fighting on the side of truth is that lies often take a great deal work to refute. But in every forum where conservatives are unable to tell their hurtful lies with impunity, is one bloody inch of ground earned in the name of a better tomorrow for the human race.
-
The Right may villify the Left, but its mutual. I believe you have been guilty of that in the past, for example, with respect to religion. The left isn't the innocent side of the debate; both sides slander the other shamelessly.
-
The Right may villify the Left, but its mutual. I believe you have been guilty of that in the past, for example, with respect to religion. The left isn't the innocent side of the debate; both sides slander the other shamelessly.
You're right; there is vilification on both sides. And I should make a clearer distinction between reasonable conservatives and the fanatic ones. The real problem is not conservatives, per se, but the evangelical religious conservatives, the ones who for whatever reason feel that it is inadequate for their religious faith to remain a private matter, and instead want to push that institution into the government and onto the rest of America. Religion is fine when it doesn't control the state or the culture of the people. The modern world is ready to welcome that sort of religion, or at least I am. But when Christian fundamentalists preach their way to the echelons of power, and commit the social evils that they have committed, it's war, plain and simple. The human future has no place for that kind of barbarism.
As I recall, you're a pretty religious person yourself. I don't know if you're an evangelical, but I wouldn't be surprised either way. Surely if you value the sanctity of your faith, you would not use it as a sword for social works. But that pragmatic concern does not seem to occur to most people. Well, let it occur to you, under fire if it must. I consider no one's faith off-limits to legitimate reprisal, when they use that faith to bring harm to the world. I do sometimes speak in broader terms than I might, or with more passion, but in matters of religious evil in particular, I make no apology, ever. History is drowned in the blood of innocent victims who lived and died at the hands of people whose beliefs and fears corrupted their minds. Christianity owns that heritage here in the modern West, and Civilization shall not desist in its conflict with that religion until the Christian evangelicals decide not to force their ways on the rest of humanity.
That's something I hope you would consider, as you find your way in life. The enmity is yours to end, because your ilk are the ones waging the offensive.
-
I would condemn anyone using their faith as a sword. People are free to practice whatever religion in this country as they want. I don't want my religion forced on others; I want them to choose it. Let me make this clear: I believe it is WRONG for anyone, Christian, Muslim, or whoever, to force their religious practices on others. However, I do not think this means we should remove religion from the public eye, because religion is ment to serve the public, to save them. I condemn those "Christians" during the Inquisition, and the cruelity there. I condemn those "Christians" who went on the Crusade, making a war between peoples into a war between religions. Those are not the type of Christians I am, nor are they the type of Christians most Christians are today.
And the offensive is not being waged on the Right side. No, we are in power right now, we are on the defensive. I'd say the Left is on the offensive now.
-
I would condemn anyone using their faith as a sword. People are free to practice whatever religion in this country as they want. I don't want my religion forced on others; I want them to choose it. Let me make this clear: I believe it is WRONG for anyone, Christian, Muslim, or whoever, to force their religious practices on others. However, I do not think this means we should remove religion from the public eye, because religion is ment to serve the public, to save them. I condemn those "Christians" during the Inquisition, and the cruelity there. I condemn those "Christians" who went on the Crusade, making a war between peoples into a war between religions. Those are not the type of Christians I am, nor are they the type of Christians most Christians are today.
I was wondering if you'd say that. It seems that I hear a lot of Christians say that sort of thing out of one end of their mouth, and then out of the other end go on calling for things like a ban on (insert controversy here) because God says (insert minority here) are wicked. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I am curious as to how you rationalize your positions on the issues without invoking a religious imperative.
And the offensive is not being waged on the Right side. No, we are in power right now, we are on the defensive. I'd say the Left is on the offensive now.
How do you figure that, exactly? It isn't true in the government. Liberals around the country are furious that decades of social reform have been systematically turned back over the past 11 years since the GOP took Congress, and accelerated once Bush was elected president. We lost even more seats in the last election, in both chambers of Congress, and as a result we have to fight harder than ever just to hold the line. I can't tell you how trying it is to see the country thrown backward in time while the rest of the developed world is moving forward. But since Dems don't control the policymaking, there's only so much we can do.
It isn't true in the federal judiciary either. That supposedly nonpartisan branch of government has historically been appointed by Republican presidents to Democratic ones at a ratio of almost two to one, mostly because in the past 25 years, we've only had a Democratic president for 8 of them. Yet despite this slant, the religious right still thinks the judiciary isn't conservative enough, and has become much more bold by continued wins in the elections. As a result, the judiciary has been under heavy attack from these religious fundamentalists, who often have decried judges whose opinions they didn't like as "activist." Not only is this an egregious logical fallacy in any number of ways that I'd be happy to expound upon, but more importantly this is one of the most dangerous developments in our country today, because when we stop defending our courts, they stop defending us. In refusing to accept the rule of law, the religious right is setting a precedent that will only bring destruction in the end. Liberals are powerless to fight this, as we don't control court appointments. We can only sit back and watch in horror--at least for now. The day will come that the religious right is wrested from power, and on that day we will have no compunction about turning all their evil machinery against them. But that day is not upon us, and in matters judicial the left wing is continually on the defense.
Nor is true of the media that the left wing is on the offense. Here we are in a dead retreat. I can't tell you how much more conservative the media have become in the past decade. That is why liberals scoff and roll their eyes when Republicans talk about the so-called "liberal media." Any serious liberal gets his or her news from an alternative source. The mainstream media are less effective as newsgatherers today than they have been since World War II and the dawn of the modern media.
The left wing certainly isn't on the offensive in Corporate America...because we don't bloody control it! Republicans control the big companies, with important exceptions, but as a whole the executives and the board directors are staunchly Republican, because the Republicans cut taxes and generally avoid intrusive regulations, and by extension the family of conservative philosophies controls business as we know it. Liberals, once again, are almost helpless to oppose this. One of the best things we can do is vote with our wallets, by patronizing (http://www.buyblue.org) liberal companies like Costco, Starbucks, and REI, and staying the fuck away from robber-baron operations like Wal-Mart. That's nice and all, but most liberals aren't that loyal to their convictions when convenience is at stake, and there are a hell of a lot more Wal-Marts than there are Trader Joe's. In any case, an offense against the right wing, our little boycott is not.
And don't get me started on the religious establishment. No one ever hears about liberal religious folks. Yet, outside the Christian faith, every significant religion in America and most of the insignificant ones too are populated with liberal majorities. Jews and Muslims vote Democrat because the Republicans are offensive to their way of life. Liberals in general love new-age spiritualism; reviving the old holidays like Mabon and burning incense and feeling at one with the harmonies of the Earth, or what have you. But you never hear about any of this. The evangelical religious conservatives have hijacked the label of religion in this country. Many liberal Christians have abandoned their faith because they have no voice left in the Christian mainstream, and many more feel deeply shut out from their own faith for the same reasons. You cannot begin to tell me that liberals are on the offensive in the religious establishment. Nowhere in the national culture is it more true that here is a battle the left wing has lost completely.
So what does that leave? Liberals aren't on "the offensive" in the government, in the media, in the judiciary, in the church, in the boardroom...what else is left?
I'll tell you what liberals do control. We control academia. We control the entertainment industry. We control the Internet. That's about it. And these institutions are important. The universities are certainly liberals' best news in the war against religious evangelism, and probably you are right that in this theater we are truly on the offensive ideologically. The entertainment industry, in this decade, I would not say is waging war on the right wing. Ten or twenty years ago, absolutely. The Simpsons were shaping the minds of my generation with their biting social satire. Cosby was showing us that blacks can have a piece of the upper crust too. Clarissa was explaining it all. But something weird happened in the entertainment industry in the late 1990s, and it got wrapped up intself. Nowadays, the only message is an appeal to the lowest common denominator, through sex, throwaway humor, and contrived drama. There's no unified social message anymore, and, hence, no assault on the right wing. Turn to cable and you'll find the occasional liberal fort, like The Daily Show, but these are exceptions to the general rule that entertainment has shot itself in the foot. And as for the Internet, I'm not sure it would be proper to call liberals "on the offensive" here. When I say that we "control" the Internet, I mean that liberals are the ones who ushered it into the mainstream and have been the best at innovating with it. The proverbial "tech geek" is a 30-year-old liberal. Google, Winamp...so many of these programs and websites you use every day were made by liberals. But does that really mean anything to you ideologically? No, it really doesn't.
So tell me, if you would, where exactly you perceive this liberal "offensive" to be directed from...because I'd sure like to know!
-
I ment in the sense that all they can do now is be on the offensive. They have already lost just about everything you just mentioned. Not much left to defend. Republicans, on the other hand, have gained much. Not much more to gain, so by definition must be on defensive. At this current moment in time.
Back to religion. You should not force your religion on other people. But are you saying that religion cannot be a factor in what you believe should be done? Religion can influences the thoughts and opinions of what people think about issues. If they believe something about an issue because of their convictions, should they advicate the opposite view, just because their first one is influenced by religion? There is a difference between forcing your religious beliefs on people, and believing something because of religion. I have my views on issues. My religion influences those views. But because they are influenced by religion, should my say have less influence in the political process that someone whose reasons for believe are secular? Thats discrimination, telling someone that their views arn't as good as someone else's because their views are "religious."
-
But are you saying that religion cannot be a factor in what you believe should be done? Religion can influences the thoughts and opinions of what people think about issues.
That's precisely what puzzles me. No one expects you to advocate for the antithesis of your beliefs, but you say your beliefs do not belong thrust upon other people. So I wonder, at what point does advocating for your beliefs cease to be an internal expression of self and change into an imposition onto others? Suppose there's a ballot issue for an amendment banning gay marriage. Do you vote for it, because your beliefs tell you gay marriage is wrong, or do you vote against it, because others stand so much to lose by your beliefs? And, obviously, it's more than just gay marriage, but that's a handy example. What about your entire ideology, overall? How do you reconcile a faith-based conviction with a desire not to impose your faith on others, when the democratic process makes the two almost inseparable?
-
Well, on gay marriage, the said admendment wouldn't take away any right they have, it would prevent them from gaining a "right" (marriage isn't even a right) designed for others.
I think I might clarify myself. The entire political process is Group A taking their views and thrusting it on everyone. Religious practices should not be thrust on other people, is what I said. I would be agianst a law that required kids to pray in school. I would be agianst a law that required people to go to church every sunday. I would be agianst a law that required everyone to follow the bible down to the last letter. I don't view gay marriage as Christians trying to force their beliefs on others, I see it as Christians preventing government from interfering with a religious insitution. I don't think the 10 Commandments should be in a Court House. With the pledge of alignence, people say its forcing the kids to follow a religion. I disagree there, because Kids are required to say it (and if they are, I'm agianst it being required), plus, belief in God does not put someone in a Religion. I don't see Abortion as a religious issue, I see it as a moral issue.
Of course I would advicate my position, and try and convince people that its right. But at the polling place, it would not be religion being forced on people, it would be our political system forcing the will of the majority on people, provided its within the walls of the constitution. On most issues, I look to see if there is a constitutional ground from which it use first.
It seems like I'm rambling... In a nut shell, don't use government to effect the way people think, to make them follow a religion. Basically, will of the majority, as long as it doesn't impose religion on people.
-
Religious practices should not be thrust on other people, is what I said.
That's a very interesting reconciliation. Now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense for someone in your position to say.
Well, on gay marriage, the said admendment wouldn't take away any right they have, it would prevent them from gaining a "right" (marriage isn't even a right) designed for others. ... I don't view gay marriage as Christians trying to force their beliefs on others, I see it as Christians preventing government from interfering with a religious insitution.
Your thoughts on marriage are particularly insightful. I think I would agree with you that the civil institution of marriage should be abolished, with the religious and civil aspects allowed to go their separate ways. That way, the government won't be encroaching on the rights of individuals to equality under the law--which is the "right" that I mentioned earlier--but the religious devout will not have to suffer races and classes of people they don't like messing up their holy traditions. In essence, functional marriage would become a civil union (except with a snappier name), and religious marriage would become a religious novelty, like baptisms or bar mitzvahs. I have quite the hunch, however, that America is far too conservative a nation to accept such a premise. One of the minority parties in Sweden--the Radical Feminists, I believe--has proposed just such a maneuver, but if it's a fringe movement in a socially liberal nation like that, then you can forget about it here in the States. I think you and I are ahead of our time.
With the pledge of alignence, people say its forcing the kids to follow a religion. I disagree there, because Kids are [not] required to say it (and if they are, I'm agianst it being required), plus, belief in God does not put someone in a Religion.
Now here we'll have to disagree. Just as Dr. Newdow argued, if we turn that "under God" phrase on its head and make the Pledge of Allegiance read "without any God," most religious people would be very upset. Why would they be upset? You tell me. But it's the same sort of upset that nonreligious people currently feel about the "under God" phrase--which, as you may know, was not a part of the original Pledge of Allegiance, but was added in the 1950s to distinguish between ourselves and the ostensibly godless Soviet Union. It was religious propaganda, and I find it disappointing that the religious people around today still buy into it. The country isn't going to die if the controversial phrase is removed, and, on the contrary, it will welcome nonreligious people back into an honest and thorough affirmation of the patriotic oath. True, this might not have much practical consequence in the context of a typical American classroom, but let's not mistake the venue of the oath for the meaning of the oath.
You know, it's just so striking that the very next word after "under God" is indivisible. "Under God" divides the country in two. It is inherently contrary to the entire point of the Pledge of Allegiance, an oath for which we are Americans first, and sectarians second. As much as James Dobson wishes it were otherwise, the United States never has been, and is not yet a Christian nation. The patriotic oath we take beneath the Stars and Stripes has nothing to do with the man on the cross who died for us 2000 years ago. It has everything to do with the United States of America. This is a perfect case to highlight the clear separation of church and state. But unfortunately, because the Newdow suit is so unpopular, I fear this meaningful lesson will be drowned in another Christian deluge of righteous wrath. Some people never learn.
I would be agianst a law that required kids to pray in school.
Where public schools are concerned, every minute wasted on optional prayer is one less minute out of the day available for instruction. If students want to have prayer, let them pray at recess or lunch. But you know what I would support? And I hope you don't accuse me of semantics, because I really do mean this...but I would support a moment of silence in schools, worded just like that. Self-reflection and introspection are important tools that we do a poor job of teaching to our children. And if kids want to use that medium to pray, by all means. Prayer is a good method for introspection, albeit perhaps a bit artificial. And as for the rest of the kids in class, they can do whatever they want. Most, sadly, would prolly just wiggle around in their seats. But it'd be a nice punctuation to the school day, especially, say, in the early afternoon or late morning.
Of course I would advicate my position, and try and convince people that its right. But at the polling place, it would not be religion being forced on people, it would be our political system forcing the will of the majority on people, provided its within the walls of the constitution.
Very good, but let us not forget the warnings given to us by our founding fathers of the tyranny of the majority. The various institutions which check this threat are centrally at issue here, because Christians are the vast majority in this country, and many of them on the individual level want to do things to the United States that not only would mean suffering or death for millions of their fellow Americans, but would eventually destroy the entire nation, leaving us a third-world pile of rubble, probably annexed by Sino-Canada. After only ten years of religious conservative rule, we are already beginning to slip in the world rankings in our education, wealth, health, technology, and everything else. Pat Robertson and his ilk are to thank for that, and they are the colorful voice of the majority...they are the incarnation, the head, if you will, of the raw Christian sentiment that flows in our national veins.
Hyperbole aside, let's remember that "majority rule" is not the last word in the political machine of the United States. Christians have never been tolerant of minorities or of non-Christians, and inasmuch as majority rule means Christian rule here in America, we'd be doing ourselves in by letting the debate go at that. And so I think your reconciliation, while interesting, could stand to be better.
-
...but would eventually destroy the entire nation, leaving us a third-world pile of rubble, probably annexed by Sino-Canada.
Sorry, but the mental image that that conjured for me made me laugh. Canada annexing the US... wouldn't that be a strange outcome.
-
Hey, Canada isn't a real country.
Oh wait, that's South Park. I keep getting that mixed up with reality. Pretty easy to do, actually.
Something Pat Robertson said once made me laugh so hard. It was something along the lines of this:
"The feminist movement is not about equal rights for women. It's about teaching women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
I also wasn't aware that Mike Newdow was a doctor of anything. I thought he was just some random prick trying to push an agenda. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if they took "under God" out of the pledge, but that doesn't change the fact that Newdow's being an asshole.
What's funny to me is that Christianity seemingly has a heavy communist bent, what with the concept of serving others before yourself. This concept is in direct opposition to capitalism, and yet Christianity is embraced in capitalist America. At the same time, religion is a very powerful way to control people; Christianity could have been used effectively in a communist regime, and yet Christians were often persecuted. This can largely be attributed to the fact that communism doesn't work and causes a great deal of human suffering. One might say that Christianity is selfish to an extent, but so is everything; if a person believes in Christianity, they often believe that by doing so, they're being saved from a torturous afterlife. Similarly, an atheist believes that he possesses complete and total free will by virtue of there being no God.
Personally, I've found that it's impossible to be completely self-serving, but selfishness does play a large part in driving society forward; in this way, it's both giving and taking at the same time. One might wonder about the classical concept of epic heroism in the context of objectivist thought; according to that, Crono is incredibly stupid for going to all the trouble to beat Lavos, when he should have just gone home and become a businessman and gotten rich, but if he hadn't done it, who else would have?
-
Something Pat Robertson said once made me laugh so hard. It was something along the lines of this:
"The feminist movement is not about equal rights for women. It's about teaching women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."
Yeah, he’s a character all right. The problem isn’t Robertson himself; I could laugh it off if it were just him. The problem is that so many people still believe this guy when he opens his mouth.
I also wasn't aware that Mike Newdow was a doctor of anything. I thought he was just some random prick trying to push an agenda. I wouldn't really have a problem with it if they took "under God" out of the pledge, but that doesn't change the fact that Newdow's being an asshole.
I haven’t personally seen his credentials, but the big media have reported him as a physician who trained at UCLA and did emergency room medicine in Sacramento, as well as a lawyer (obviously) and, perhaps satirically, the head minister of his own fact-venerating church. He’s a very colorful figure. But an asshole? Nah…Pat Robertson is an asshole. Dr. Newdow is just a passionate guy who wishes his daughter was a bigger part of his life, and whose legal crusade strikes most Americans as nitpicky and overdramatic. Never mind that he’s right; most people just don’t see that. Many Americans have long wanted to restore the vitality of the separation of church and state, but no one was expecting us to have a shot at something like this until Mike Newdow came along. What he has been doing is tantamount to bombing the enemy’s capital city…it continues to be both unexpected and attention-grabbing.
Some people will always hate him for what he’s doing. Others will express the same opinion that you did, saying that the whole thing is ridiculous and that Newdow’s an asshole. But many of us are hopeful that his case will succeed.
The problem with paradigmatic social progress, Hadriel, is that it never occurs on the center. Only radical movements can hope to crack society’s firmly established worldviews. The abolitionists were an unsavory bunch. The union bosses were very unscrupulous. The feminists are difficult to stomach. But it’s because of these groups that we abolished slavery, won rights for workers, and helped women to achieve more rights. The paradigm-shift itself, which these sorts of radicals engender, is much smoother and easier to swallow than the passionate, unrelenting ideological zeal that the instigators of social change must effect in order to bring these paradigm-shifts about. Newdow is such a figure. America won’t derail when and if he wins his upcoming Pledge of Allegiance case in the Supreme Court. Newdow himself raises far more hackles than would the changes he wants to implement. But that’s what it takes to change the whole country from the top-down: It takes radicals. Like ‘em or not, we owe them our way of life.
Christ was a liberal radical, yes? Many Christians are fond of saying that, yet they don’t put two and two together and equate any of today’s liberal radicals with their Lord and Savior. I guess that’s just how it is when you’re a part of the corrupt establishment rather than the solution.
What's funny to me is that Christianity seemingly has a heavy communist bent, what with the concept of serving others before yourself. This concept is in direct opposition to capitalism, and yet Christianity is embraced in capitalist America. At the same time, religion is a very powerful way to control people; Christianity could have been used effectively in a communist regime, and yet Christians were often persecuted. This can largely be attributed to the fact that communism doesn't work and causes a great deal of human suffering. One might say that Christianity is selfish to an extent, but so is everything; if a person believes in Christianity, they often believe that by doing so, they're being saved from a torturous afterlife.
I hadn’t looked at it that way before. “What is mine is yours.” Early Christianity does have a certain communistic ring to it, at least on the surface. Better theologians or political scientists than I would probably be able to scrutinize that analogy more thoroughly. I’m not sure I agree, however, with your proposal that Christianity was not embraced in the Soviet Union because communism doesn’t work. That sounds like specious reasoning to me. I’m not a communist myself—I’m an imperialist, which is about as far away as you can get from communism—so I’m not going to go out of my way to put up a defense for communism, but I would at least say that I don’t think your attacks on it are very effective. Maybe you can make a doctoral thesis out of it, eh?
That line at the end about Christians being selfish inasmuch as their goal is to achieve salvation…I would agree with that. But not quite for the reasons you might think. More accurate, I agree with your underlying insinuation that Christians are committing what you might describe as a “moral error,” because they have institutionalized many of their human fears about life, death, and the beyond, in the form of this mythological imagery of the Christian afterlife. This would be a “moral error” insofar as it prevents Christians from addressing those fascinating human fears in a more…reality-based way. But as for the selfishness aspect itself, I do not agree that selfishness itself is a “moral error.”
(I don’t believe in morality, but getting into all of that is a big, messy aside. I’ll just use morality as a synonym for my own thing here, as well as later on.)
Similarly, an atheist believes that he possesses complete and total free will by virtue of there being no God.
Separate from the rest of your post, this is very wrong. Some atheists believe in free will, but many do not. One’s beliefs on free will is not dependent upon one’s beliefs on God. I myself do not believe in “free will” in the sense in which it is commonly understood. Granted, I am not an atheist, but my functional devotion to a God is just the same. Be careful of making fallacious overgeneralizations.
Personally, I've found that it's impossible to be completely self-serving, but selfishness does play a large part in driving society forward; in this way, it's both giving and taking at the same time. One might wonder about the classical concept of epic heroism in the context of objectivist thought; according to that, Crono is incredibly stupid for going to all the trouble to beat Lavos, when he should have just gone home and become a businessman and gotten rich, but if he hadn't done it, who else would have?
Now we move on to the final and most interesting part of your post. I would have to say, however, that I find your perception of the nature of selfishness to be hopelessly simplistic and patently false. I don’t know how much philosophical energy you’ve invested into the study of self and selfishness, so I’m not sure if I am speaking to a point that has taken you years to develop, or if it’s something you just came up with from the top of your head. If I were talking to a philosopher, I would at least know he’d put some thought into whatever it is he’s saying. But in your case, I can only guess that you haven’t really given the matter deep consideration. (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.)
The first thing I want to say, is that selfishness does not exist in terms of its popular counterpart, selflessness, or “altruism.” If you can humor me for a minute, the two are not opposites. They are not even all that closely related. No action that is not instinctual or legally insane can be described as anything other than self-serving—i.e., “selfish”—because it serves our sentient will. Everything we do with a sane mind—everything—is because we want to do it. All conflicts that contradict this premise are fallacious, every last one of them. (I will defend that claim against any argument of your convenience.) Even jumping in front of the mayor to take a bullet is selfish, because the sentient will is the engine of constructs such as pleasure, honor, integrity, duty, decency, hedonism, character, and so forth, and something within us said “Taking a bullet for the mayor makes me a better person.” There’s a lot of meaning crammed into the word better, but what it all comes down to is that whatever rationale we use to make the decision to do an action, no matter how much difficulty or hardship that action causes us, it was our will to do it, and so therefore it was a selfish act.
This should certainly raise the point in your mind that, if selfishness serves our sentient will, then it isn’t necessarily the “moral error” that people accuse it to be. Selfishness is just another way of saying “I’m going to act on my will.” Think of it as the physical ramification of acting on one’s own will. The opposite of selfishness is not altruism. The opposite of selfishness is apathy. So we’ve got to stop thinking of selfishness as a bad thing. It isn’t. It can be used for good, or for bad, but selfishness itself is inherently neither. In fact, versus its counterpart, it is a greater good to possess more selfishness than apathy, as well as as much selfishness as possible. (That might be the first time I’ve ever used the word “as” four times in one clause.)
What turns selfishness to good or to bad ends? Well, your example of Crono becoming a businessman versus going off to fight Lavos is a good example. We’ve established that every act is inherently selfish, so of course both of these possible outcomes are selfish on Crono’s part. High-level philosophers will ask the question: At which point in the game (if any) did it become a moral responsibility for Crono to attempt to destroy Lavos? Prior to that point, Crono could have become a businessman instead, and, presuming that destiny did not bring him into contact with Lavos, the two destinies when compared relative to each other and measured in terms of Lavos are equal in moral desirability. If they were compared in terms of something else, then one would probably achieve desirability over the other. But you’re saying, “Okay, in terms of the absolute good of the universe, then.” Well, measured in terms of that, going after Lavos is certainly the better of the two choices, because it saves the world—and we assume the world’s continued existence and vitality is a moral good, which itself is a discussion for another time.
However, we have only compared these two possible outcomes relative to one another. Neither has yet to be assigned as good or bad in absolute terms. By my own standards, as Crono is a fellow of good character, and both commercial enterprise and Lavos-slaying are noble pursuits, I would have to say that both of these choices are more good than bad, in absolute terms, and that, given our relative comparison a moment ago, the Lavos-slaying destiny is more good than the entrepreneurial one. This conclusion and all its ramifications exposes some of the oversimplification of which I accused your original assessment of the conundrum, quod erat demonstrandum. =P
Finally, you also qualified part of your comments through the lens of objectivist philosophy—something I happen to be well-versed in. As it so happens, this framing is unnecessary, because it quite easy to derive a scenario where Crono finds it in his personal interests—which is analogous to the Objective rubric of virtuousness—to slay Lavos, even though Lavos has no deleterious effect on the 1000 A.D. era. I reason this because, despite herself, Rand was unable to achieve a completely individualist manifesto in her works, in that the accomplishments of the protagonists were not fated to live and die as shadows of their creators. They became meaningful physical assets. In other words, a dying chairman wouldn’t plunder his or her company simply because it could serve him no further use. The chairman would certainly bequeath his or her wealth rather than dismantle it, which is anti-individualistic by any measure. The physical accomplishments would memorialize the person who created them. Notice that in Atlas Shrugged, this point can be inferred by examining the disappearing industrialists, who always sabotaged their companies before they vanished, and taking the inverse of this theme to arrive at the conclusion aforementioned. The same applies to Crono, such as obviates your suggestion that it would be “incredibly stupid” of him to choose Lavos-slaying over commercial enterprise.
Yep…that about says it all, I think. =P
-
One might wonder about the classical concept of epic heroism in the context of objectivist thought; according to that, Crono is incredibly stupid for going to all the trouble to beat Lavos, when he should have just gone home and become a businessman and gotten rich, but if he hadn't done it, who else would have?
Actually, the classical concept of hero is one who is fully self-serving. Why did Akhilles fight? Was it for love, or for the betterment of his people or world? Never! He fought so that he might gain honour and respect, and possessions. Once this is questioned, he withdraws from fighting, allowing his old comrades to be slaughtered. He does begin to question the nature of such a code - wondering what the good in honour and possessions is if man is simply to die as it is - but most of his actions are very self-serving. The same might be said for most of the heroes of the war. In fact, the only one I can think of that seems to care a lot for others is Agamemnon. The code of the day, the code of the classical hero, was 'if you're strong, you'll take what you want, and be rich. Be good to your friends, and nasty to your foes.' It is until far later times that the heroes cease being motivated by selfish aims.
-
Personally, I've found that it's impossible to be completely self-serving, but selfishness does play a large part in driving society forward; in this way, it's both giving and taking at the same time. One might wonder about the classical concept of epic heroism in the context of objectivist thought; according to that, Crono is incredibly stupid for going to all the trouble to beat Lavos, when he should have just gone home and become a businessman and gotten rich, but if he hadn't done it, who else would have?
Ironically, Crono probably collected more wealth on his quest to kill Lavos than he ever could have through commercial enterprize.
-
Crono is incredibly stupid for going to all the trouble to beat Lavos, when he should have just gone home and become a businessman and gotten rich, but if he hadn't done it, who else would have?
Ironically, Crono probably collected more wealth on his quest to kill Lavos than he ever could have through commercial enterprize.
Perhaps this is a vindication of the idea of "if you do good, then you get good rewards, even when not looking for them."
Ya that's reading in to it a bit too far, but hey, could work!
:)
-
I'd chalk Crono's riches up to game mechanics. Assuming that Guardia practices capitalism, there are oodles of people richer than Crono.
And no, Mike Newdow is an asshole. Whether he's right or not is irrelevant to that judgment. Pat Robertson is also an asshole. Actually, I'm kind of an asshole, too, for those same reasons; I piss people off on a regular basis, but damn it, I get stuff done.
It's not because communism doesn't work that Christianity is opposed to it. It's because of the suffering it causes. But yay imperialism. States are inherently expanionist, at least as far as circumstances permit.
If someone believes that there's nothing controlling their destinies, why would they ever believe that they don't have free will? Here enters the concept of "slavery to your instincts" aka sin. But if you want to do something, is it really slavery?
You're seriously not an atheist? Basically everything you post smacks of "hey, let's IP ban Jesus" or something.
As far as selfishness goes, I haven't really given it as much consideration as I'd like to, due to time constraints.
No action that is not instinctual or legally insane can be described as anything other than self-serving—i.e., “selfish”—because it serves our sentient will. Everything we do with a sane mind—everything—is because we want to do it.
This is quite true. Taking a bullet for the mayor is inherently illogical, but it's still selfish.
I don't know why we'd ever assume that the continued vitality and existence of the world is anything but good. This is selfishness at its core; in a dying or dead world, we don't have complete freedom to act as we would otherwise.
The decision to follow Galt in Atlas Shrugged was of course made selfishly. The talented people of the world basically said "fuck it, I'm tired of not getting the rewards I deserve for working my ass off." They dismantled their companies to keep the looters from getting hold of them, because looting is gay.
-
That's a very interesting reconciliation. Now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense for someone in your position to say.
Reconciliation? No, clairifaction. Check my previous posts on what I said :)
Where public schools are concerned, every minute wasted on optional prayer is one less minute out of the day available for instruction. If students want to have prayer, let them pray at recess or lunch.
Agreed, and agreed about moment of Silence too.
Very good, but let us not forget the warnings given to us by our founding fathers of the tyranny of the majority.
We have the consitition to check the power of the majority.
What's funny to me is that Christianity seemingly has a heavy communist bent, what with the concept of serving others before yourself. This concept is in direct opposition to capitalism, and yet Christianity is embraced in capitalist America.
Disagree, disagree, disagree... But I do not what to argue economics here. Personal freedom with money is key to the giving process. You make what you earn, and then you are supposed to give it to others. If the government just distributes the wealth, like in communism, the giving of the induvisual has no value, since everyone would have the same, and you wouldn't have to work to earn it.
-
If someone believes that there's nothing controlling their destinies, why would they ever believe that they don't have free will? Here enters the concept of "slavery to your instincts" aka sin. But if you want to do something, is it really slavery?
A friend of mine at work is a philosophy major, and he and I have spent a great deal of time discussing the issue of free will in a godless universe. Currently, we have established that there is no fate. Based on our (admittedly, limited) knowledge of quantuum physics, we concluded that the inherit randomness of particle behavior prevents the possibility of predestination. He is a proponent, however, that we do not have free will, because we lack agency. It is his assertion that all human conciousness and actions, including the illusion of free will, are the result of physical law. So, without fate, without any sort of supernatural beings, no free will.
-
Well, you could say there's randomness, and you could say there isn't. Feynman's sum-over-paths approach to quantum mechanics is something to take into consideration here.
-
You're seriously not an atheist? Basically everything you post smacks of "hey, let's IP ban Jesus" or something.
Heh…I am seriously not an atheist.
A friend of mine at work is a philosophy major, and he and I have spent a great deal of time discussing the issue of free will in a godless universe. Currently, we have established that there is no fate. Based on our (admittedly, limited) knowledge of quantuum physics, we concluded that the inherit randomness of particle behavior prevents the possibility of predestination. He is a proponent, however, that we do not have free will, because we lack agency. It is his assertion that all human conciousness and actions, including the illusion of free will, are the result of physical law. So, without fate, without any sort of supernatural beings, no free will.
When I was a kid I believed the usual “free will” stuff that pretty much everyone in this culture is raised to believe. But by the time I was leaving high school, I knew that my belief was sadly outdated and full of holes, so over a few years in college I kept my eye on the problem, and I slowly came up with what is probably the philosophy theory in my cognitive repertoire of which I am the most proud, a “Theory of Will” that answers once and for all that age-old question of free will.
Sparing you a very lengthy (and itself somewhat outdated) treatise, here’s the bottom line: “Free will” does not exist, because it appeals to a supernatural force inasmuch as is implied the mechanism of changing what would otherwise happen, whereas the world by definition is the sum of all that is natural and therefore there can be no such appeal. However, neither is there such a thing as “predetermination,” which unsavorily locks the entire universe into a single course of action determined at the dawn of time. Instead of saying that the world is predetermined, I argue that it is determinable, with respect not to the beginning of time as predetermination holds, but with respect to a time-collapsed instantaneous universal perspective. All component elements of the universe can be determined from such a perspective, which is represented by the concept of the universe as a closed system of uncertain finitude. Sentient creatures like you and I are able to maintain the illusion of “free will” because our awareness is an open system that takes cues not only from our bodies but from our environment, none of which we comprehend in every detail. But in any case, the key point of the theory is that if actions are determinable rather than predetermined, then there is such a thing as free will such as is limited to the natural world, which is to say that at every moment any component element of the world shall unfold freely and likewise we have this ability to choose our fate going into the next moment, as is ramified by the cognitive process, but that the choices we freely make could never have been anything else but what we made them to be. But because this is dependent upon the moment of decision rather than the dawn of time, there is no contrived artifice in the form of an external lock on our will. It’s all very interesting, and I’ve been very satisfied by this perspective ever since. Of course, to test it as a fully scientific theory would require a point of view that may not be possible without achieving omniscient knowledge of the sum of existence, so the caveat is that I treat it as a philosophical theory rather than a scientific one.
Interesting stuff, to be sure.
-
how can I beilive your not an athiest I do but you do say alot of athiest replys.
-
Learn to SPELL!
-
sorry, belive
-
sorry, belive
That's better. =P
Anyhow, the reason you can believe that I'm not an atheist is because not only have I said as much, but also because I have never done anything that would necessarily and sufficiently establish my being an atheist. Thus, there is no support for such a belief.
I think what you have noticed is my hostility toward the Islamo-Christian God. I have never categorically denied the possibility of God. That makes me an agnostic, which is a far cry from atheism.
-
O.K. thanks for the proof.