First, I'd like to point out the obvious: the legions of ex-intelligence personnel, government officials (Christ, even former presidential John Kerry openly acknowledged his doubts about the fall of WTC 7, saying "demolition" was a possibility, in his view!), professional people (architects, engineers, physicists, etc.), and even former 9/11 commissioners who question the Bush Conspiracy Theory are not "crackpots" or "nuts" by and large. To suggest so is to indulge in crass silliness.
I'm not going to argue the specifics about what happened (or I believe may have happened) on 9/11. Instead, I'm going to ask those who believe most or all of the Bush Administration claims while dismissing opposing claims as "nonsense" or "crackpottery": To what degree is your dismissal based on an even-handed consideration of the arguments/evidence both pro and con as opposed to certain a priori assumptions based on minimal reading/study?
You're happy because you choose to be happy, Brother T? Ah, what benighted fool you are!
Ultimately, I don't think there's any better way to put it. While listening to my son complain about all the bad things in his past and current life, I replied: "Ah, but the reassuring thing is that you chose almost all of this stuff - it wasn't imposed on you from the outside." Strangely, he didn't disagree.
Good point about desire. The Eastern idea doesn't confute wanting things - I think even a cursory perusal of Buddhist stoicism and related ideas reveals that.
I would say that applies precisely to those who believe the government agitprop-sound bite absent impartial critical analysis.
Even former 9/11 commissioners, as well as the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, have stated that many of the facts as we know them are false. I'm not saying that they're claiming a direct Bush Administration involvement/planning, but they have firmly opened the door to the notion much has not been revealed about the events of that day, as well as much of what we know is false.
The bottom line is that no one who makes blanket statements of the "anything contrary to the Bush Administration conspiracy theory is the product of nutcases" variety has performed anything resembling an in-depth study of 9/11 events. The vast majority of those who makes such statements, in my observation, have simply made some deductions from a few newspaper and/or internet blurbs - deductions based largely, it would seem, on certain a priori assumptions (e.g., "...a consp of this magnitude is just way too complex to pull off..."
This despite - as anyone with a modicum of historical reading knows - that governments, most notably in this instance the USG, have maintained conspiracies for decades if not longer. Also, this claim ignores the contrary claim that evidence disputing the mainstream conspiracy theory does in fact exist - in rather large abundance, as it turns out - which forms the basis for rational skepticism of the Bush et al assertions.
Perhaps because you weren't watching the news that day (because explosions were mentioned several times on major news channels). Fortunately, you can remedy that lapse by watching some Youtube videos.
Well-said, Blues. I've enjoyed your reflective participation here as well.
Regarding desire - it was gratifying to see Garden and others parse out the Eastern meaning of it, which is fairly far-removed, I think, from the simplistic "wanting something."
Of course, if it were, it would suffer from the logical problem of why we ought to want a lack of desire.
It seems fairly self-evident that wanting nothing could not compose a state of happiness, but rather would amount to a state of being not alive.
For me, I've never been into casual dating. I would only want to date someone I felt I could marry (same with GG). That doesn't mean, contra MM, that I would expect to know that I'd want to marry someone right away, or that I wouldn't allow for a natural discovery process; it simply means that my goal is marriage.
At some point, when it becomes clear that my girlfriend is not someone I would marry, then I would end our romantic relationship.
I should add, as a personal note, that I've known GG for nearly three years, and we have not yet committed to marriage. If I didn't believe she was "marriage material," however, we wouldn't still be together. She feels likewise.
By the way, Nesara, congratulations seem in order: I think you've disproved the notion that there might exist some limits on threads devoted to discussing the amazing merits of the thread-originator.
On the other hand, of late I've found myself being amazed at what I'm still physically capable of at my age. I was recently patting myself hardily on the back for my strength gains. But there's that pesky saying involving "pride" and "falling," which in my case took the form of trying for one too many reps of a dead lift (300 lbs.)...and then having to drop the weight as my lower back gave.
So now I set before the computer, humbled, contemplating my erstwhile manly power...
Perhaps I'm pointing out the obvious (though probably not), but if you received no good feelings from doing something you probably are a robot. But if you happen to be a human being, and gain no satisfaction at all from helping others (as Mother Teresa claimed, I believe, in a memoir), what would that say about you? I'm thinking nothing good at all.
Interesting question, Antonio, with profound implications.
Ambrose2007 Forum Posts (8,881)
Good to see you again.
RE: Why you are Unhappy.
Did you mean: "Did you tell me?"I can easily believe that Tony would enjoy "duel citizenship."