I'm not sure if you're an American abroad or not so I'm not sure if you realize how disparate and diverse libertarian views are here in the US, but for me, this quote from Mill says alot.
"Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
We'll see, T. No offense. With respect as always, sir.
I have to go make lunch now, so I leave this final thought.
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were all hemp farmers. People think that marijuana is un-american. It is not. Is it un-christan, perhaps? It's been around since antiquity, and its still here today, regardless of prohibition. I know of no passage in the bible that prohibits it short of the body as a temple passage, so if someone can cite one for me I'd be obliged.
My argument for it is not for legalization, it is for de-stigmatization and regulation/taxation as a luxury and apothecariel much the same as alcohol and other controlled substances.
In certain uses it definitely has medicinal properties, as evidenced by personal experience and the testimony of several close CONSERVATIVE friends of mine who used it to stimulate appetite while undergoing treatment for breast cancer.
Bon Jour all. I'll be back later. Thanks for everyone participating.
This is a non-sequitor argument. How does the platform connect to his behavior? Are you saying pot-smokers are unbalanced and thus potentially violent? Because that generalization isn't going to fly either.
That is avoiding Loughlen's responsibility, in the same vein that the anti-gun platform the liberal's are trying to tie to the event is. Guns don't kill people any more than spoons make people fat. The same goes for imbibing an herb. The cops don't haul in the whiskey bottle when they arrest a drunk driver, they hold the driver responsible for his behavior, so this is a non-issue.
I've seen far worse behavior on alcohol, and that is legal, so tying this event to that liberal position is a straw-man. As well, Pat Robertson himself recently wondered on air about the position of incarcerating so many people for what is essentially a victimless crime, so this conservative position is just plain losing its steam.
I don't know why people do these things, T. I'm actually kind of scared to know. I think extremists on both sides make it harder on everyone, and to utilize such crises in an Emanuel style politicizing of such acts on either side is just wrong.
Why do we have to paint everything political? Again, I don't know, other than to say that we're social animals that have psychological hangups and defense mechanisms unique to each individual. This is why I'm not a big fan of stereotypes because of their insipid utility as political weapons.
How do you like your liberals? Baked or fried? (sorta like asking if you've stopped beating your wife yet)...
You'd actually be surprised how much influence Mill and utilitarianism has on the Libertarian platform. See my previous post about the concept of harm as it relates to On Liberty. The bolded portion of your post is exactly why I started this thread. Thank you for your participation, sir.
Loughlen was a nutjob. I think, regardless of his ideologies, he would have acted out somehow, against someone, regardless of their political affiliations. That it had to happen is just sad. That everyone wants to politicize his actions speaks more about everyone else than it does about him.
Thus, freedom of speech does have limits, even in a free society, when it incites a majority to "harm" the minority, or visa-versa.
How this plays into the current political atmosphere is not cut-and-dried however. The slanderous and disrespectful speech of one side to the other, and the resultant strident defense of actions being mere retaliation to previous injuries, does not hold water.
Conservatives are big on personal responsibility. If the liberal decides to relinquish the higher moral ground by jumping off that bridge and into the river of ad hominem, is that justification for doing the same? Remember, personal responsibility dictates ethical behavior on the part of the person regardless of provocation. So...personal responsibility.
The party of "No" as the GOP has been called recently, adds nothing constructive to the debate through mere contradiction. And offering solutions that have been shown via history to fail is the true definition of mental derangement for both parties. Socialism is bad. Capitalism is bad. Doing the same thing over and over again, is the true definition of insanity.
Liberalism is a mental disorder? Try all "isms" to date, including conservatism, progressivism, and liberalism.
Let's state it how it really is. Modern life is a mental disorder. The cure will be found. I'm thinking an extinction event. Maybe the insects will do a better job...
Here. Let me borrow that big paint brush of yours...
"Conservatives are heartless, greedy, unhappy people."
See, I can paint in generalities too.
Stereotypes never solve anything...they are a vehicle of hate and prejudice. Isn't it great to live in the Great Satan and have the freedom to love or hate? To make our minds up about the quality of character of people we've never even met, based on some label we bandy about like we're so much better?
Conservatives love their god so much, but they sure never listen to him: "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
To be a liberal in America these days is to suffer, according to several media pundits *cough*, "mental illness".
But by the above definition, to be American is to be a Liberal. Do we not believe in the equality of humanity, the pursuit of happiness, and have we not fought numerous wars for the sake of "Liberalism" as defined above? Are we not an Enlightened Republic?
The last few days have me wondering.
Conservatives often throw "Liberal" around as a hateful epithet, but do they even know what they are talking about? Do they truly wish to return to a time where the Divine Right of Kings is what determines everyone's destiny? Or is it all just part of the vitriol of the current political landscape?
Sure, Liberty is a bad thing, when somebody else has it and you want more of it. But the cost of Liberty is blood. Let us find common ground in the blood spilt this weekend in realizing that we are all Liberals, or we can return to Hobbes' "Bellum omnium contra omnes" and forget this social contract we call America.
Many people confuse kindness for weakness. Kindness is a choice we make like any other. Anger solves nothing. To be kind rather to react "in kind" in the midst of a storm of angry stimuli is much harder than to surrender to the moment and sink to the level of the "perpetrator". "You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished BY your anger." - Buddha
II.
Death is a part of life. Many people mourn their departed rather than celebrate them. This is a mistake. Time is an illusion. Those who matter transcend matter, and every moment is like a string of pearls extending into infinity. You carry the memories; honor them, do not mourn them, for they are a happy burden, if only you let them be what they are.
What gets me is the way they've engineered the "invisible hand" to strangle this country. Free market of what? We don't make anything anymore.
Politicians don't get rich by making a country strong. They get rich by making a country sick. It's the same philosophy the priesthood has been using for nigh 2000 years now. Vital, confident citizens don't need government. If they don't need government, they decide to get rid of it. Vital, strong citizens can make those decisions. Weak, dependent citizens do what they're told, or they starve, because their unemployment runs out.
Interesting video, trish. I'm thinking aggressive atheism is a misnomer in my case, however. I tend to take Asimov's view on atheism. He didn't object to the concept of God provided extraordinary claims could be proven via extraordinary evidence. He stuck to rational humanism and left it at that. Objects of faith are outside of reason and need not even be addressed even as a non-issue by a rationalist.
Rejection of absurdist claims requiring proof of a negative is primary to reason. Hence the common scientific method of reductio ad absurdum in falsification methodologies.
Being a fixed sign (organizer) I tend to get along with other Apocalyptic signs (Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, and other Aquarians), who represent the Zodiacal equivalent of the Bull, Lion, Eagle, and Angel of the Revelation. Some say they have a special adversarial relationship to each other, but its really because we're all just so stubborn we disagree just because we can.
In others, it treads on Nietzsche's perspectivism.
The loss of any overarching objective perspective ("God is dead") leaves every man with the task of either enlarging his perspective to take its place by the will to power, or perishing from the fragmentation of reality into pure potential via the nausea of nihilism (according to Nietzsche).
Evolution of man into the Ubermensch is and will be done. When it happens, it will be something outside of the imagination of humanity, because all else that falls within our scope to visualize is something achievable without this drastic step.
Frankly, I always interpreted the Ubermensch as a fundamental expansion or change of human imagination that will allow us to take on this role of primary perspective.
Self-overcoming: Analogy. When two mirrors are placed parallel, they reflect each other ad infinitum. A man attempting to see this infinite reflection interjects his eye between the mirrors, thus breaking the perpendicular of the infinitely reflected light beam. Perspective without mass is required to achieve this view, otherwise, we get in the way of ourselves.
God the Father? God the Son? Or just plain old Holy Ghost?
An act of blasphemy To assume the role Of creator? Or something we Do everyday, And we don't even Notice?
If I were God, I'd be right where I am. Yea, though I walk Through the valley Of my own creation, I will forebear from Hosting my own Devastation, What is created By will Will thus be Destroyed, These are the Tools, thus Crudely employed, Life, after all, Is, and then isn't. And here must I Say, all this time I've enjoyed. I hope not too many Are completely annoyed.
You were in, Flynn came home, and now you're out, and so is Flynn.
What we have here, is inequity.
Stop letting her put you on a shelf. Own your part of the situation, and empower yourself to make positive change. If you being you breaks the friendship, it wasn't much to begin with.
If it is to be just friends, remember, friendship is a two-way street, and it sounds like she wants to have her cake and eat it too. Typical of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder).
-Intimacy without intimacy - crying on your shoulder, eh? Pillows don't have feelings, people do. Quit conforming to her expectations of you. Until you assert your own will you are just an extension of hers. Tell her to buy a dog if she wants a one-way friendship.
-Compassion without passion - Feel sorry for me, but don't expect anything in return; you are here to fulfill my need, I'm not here to fulfill yours. Again, textbook NPD.
I could be wrong, and I could go on, but I have a feeling there is more to this story than is being explicated. Just a few observations from a disinterested outsider.
Regardless of what I do or don't know, I advise this: OWN yourself, do not give that privilege to others.
You mean, like a book, written by humans, supposedly inspired by God?
You wound your own case with this assertion. Substitute "priest" or "minister" for philosopher, and you get far more delusions than from a philosopher.
Nietzsche said God is dead. Funny how humans continue to speak for God by saying Nietzsche is dead, and yet again attributing their words to "Him". God HIMSELF has yet to answer.
The prophet spake In words of fire, Zarathustra spake, A fell deed, and dire. God is dead, he said, And man has yet to be, Always just becoming, From maybe never free.
These fiends, These rascals, Nay, say These regrets, In the path To will, to power, These things That time Never, ever, These things, Forgets.
Short one Memory, well, Then, have mine, These interesting Times, these rhymes, These stories told Again and again, Nothing new, Nothing said, It's so sad to Be alive in A land of The living dead.
The prophet spake In words of fire, Zarathustra spake, A fell deed, and dire. God is dead, he said, And man has yet to be, Always just becoming, From maybe never free.
“Okay.” Val said, and then sighed. “Well, the least I could do is make sure you've got a good meal in you before I throw you back to the gnarls. Come with me, and we'll see about fixing you up with a knife, and some Jacko stew.” “You killed a Jacko?” He looked sharply at her, then let out a low whistle, impressed. “That's something else. They're damn fast and smart as hell.” “Tell me.” She shrugged, leading the way to the main house. “They've been raiding my root garden almost every night. Not after last night.” “Still.” He followed, shaking his head with admiration, “Stalking them must have been a study in patience.” “You don't know the half of it.” She replied, entering the farmhouse through the kitchen.
Everybody was gathered in the dining hall adjacent to the kitchen. Willie was still scowling with suspicion, but the rest of the children looked excited to have a visitor. “You can put your stuff there on the counter.” She pointed, and he set his pack down where she indicated, looking around. “Wood-stove, huh?” He said, raising his eyebrow, and jerking his head toward it, and the bubbling pot on top of it. “Is that what I think I smell?” “Yeah. Jacko stew.” She said. “Bowl's are in the cupboard to the right of the stove. Help yourself.” He did so while she went into the dining room and looked over her flock. They were the little lost children Joe had given a home and hope to. Her legacy. Willie, a little apart as always, the misunderstood genius role apparent in his body-language toward the rest of them. Wanting so desperately to be accepted, but lacking the means and the manner to ever achieve more than awkward tolerance from the rest of them. Sadie, the next oldest, a grubby brunette old Joe had found abandoned in the empty shopping center outside Klamath. She idolized Val, and tried so hard to be like her that it was embarrassing and painful sometimes. The twins Murko and Shandy, boy and girl, until a few years ago the children of their closest neighbor, Farmer Dan. Dan had been kicked in the head by his mule and had died not long afterward. Joe had taken them in, also helping himself to some of Dan's tools and equipment. He wouldn't need the stuff anymore, and Joe and Val did. Stoddard and Owl, the last and youngest child and his stuffed animal he insisted was real and could talk. Owl talked alright, but in a voice that came out of Stoddard. Val suspected it was the trauma of watching his parents being killed by raiders that created this fanciful attachment to the ragged bird, as well as the separate personality that manifested. Stoddard was her contribution to the scruffy collection of waifs; found after Joe had returned to the dust.
Val had heard of these bunkers, of course. All of the surviving poor scratching out a living above the safety of the dirt had. Moles, they were called. Rich people, who could afford the same miracles of science that had doomed the surface of the planet. “So, yeah, these things are grown hydroponically down below.” The scrawny stranger was saying, spreading the vacuum sealed plastic bags on the ground in front of her. She barely paid attention to the vaguely green contents, studying the young man who called himself Jack. What she saw didn't really impress her. His limp, sun-damaged black hair hung long down over a patricians face; long, narrow nose, and brown eyes just a little too close together to be perfect. Handsome, but in a shifty, ratlike way. She shrugged inwardly. Good god, Val, why the reproductive evaluation, she thought to herself, its not like your going to marry the fool. She forced herself to pay attention to the words he was saying. “...what I really need in return, is a good, sharp knife and any other weapon's you can spare, and fresh water if you have any.” “Um...the knife and the water I can probably arrange.” She said after thinking. “You'll have to talk to Willy about any extra weapons. He's been tinkering in the barn, but I don't know if he has anything serviceable.” “I don't think Willy trusts me.” Jack said, stuffing his stuff back into the pack. “I don't trust you, Jack.” She said, her voice flat. “Just because your in trouble doesn't mean you don't deserve it. How would I know?” “I understand, Val.” He said, then shrugged. “I'm not asking for anything but an honest trade.”
To be fair, the topic of this thread is more about archaeological evidence of places and things that are actually supported via more than just the bible. That Babylon existed is without a doubt. That God destroyed a Tower there, is...not proven. Nor are any of the other more extraordinary claims to divine intervention.
That the bible holds any more historical credence than, say, Homer's works, is questionable. That Troy existed has been proven. That Poseidon persecuted Odysseus, or that Eris started the conflict between Mycenae and Troy to begin with, holds as much weight as any claims to divine will in the bible, which is to say, none. Correlation does not equal causation.
Now come the vague threats of damnation and the appeals to ignorance loosely phrased as a variation on Pascal's Wager. Because I do not follow your faith doesn't mean I don't have any. It just means I don't share YOURS. Respect!!!
Correlation in historical accounts to archaeological evidence does not equal causation. For instance, all historical accounts, including the Bible, mention a deluge.
Some paleontological/geological evidence suggests regional flooding in the area in support of these accounts. Nowhere does science find any evidence of supernatural or divine causation of this event, however.
Floods happen, via completely natural means, and sometimes, on a very massive scale. The scope and magnitude of natural events on Earth are of such a scale that no supernatural means is necessary for humanity to suffer "shock and awe" from these events, and for a primitive psyche seeking meaning, to record these as acts of Divine Will.
The physical evidence of places and events that may coincide with information in the Bible do not validate that wild claims of miraculous causes that are attributed to these events. The veracity of one part of an account does not automatically edify the other half of the account, especially as to means and methods.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Carl Sagan, paraphrased.
Just curious as to which GOD (sic) you refer to, the Abrahamic version, the Eastern version, or the Native American version? The deistic symbols of all peoples, vastly separated geographically, all amount to the same patriarchal archetype.
So, my question to everyone is, why does it all have to be supernatural intelligence and not ET intelligence? Most myths have some basis in fact because its all, ultimately an attempt, as blue said, to find meaning in events that often defy explanation.
But just because science can't explain things is not a condemnation on science, just our own very limited understanding of how things really work.
"Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws" of prediction:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I'll agree with that. Humanity insists on meaning. Being isn't enough, it must ("must" being a cognitive distortion, of course) also have meaning.
Meaning is dependent on context, IMO. Nietzsche elaborated at length about language as metaphor, and thus, anything we can think in words is metaphorical in nature. Thus, "God" is a metaphor in of it's very nature, a symbol, and thus subject to individual interpretation.
Which is why orthodoxy insists on a common interpretation of God, to create Conformity, and exert CONTROL. It's also why religions always experience a schism into sectarian debates, when heterodox interpretations are insisted upon by dissenters who view the issue differently from the orthodoxy.
Galactic_bodhi Forum Posts (9,196)
Liberalism: A Misunderstood term
I'm not sure if you're an American abroad or not so I'm not sure if you realize how disparate and diverse libertarian views are here in the US, but for me, this quote from Mill says alot."Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”