Mr. President! Governator! Here's the answer
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The point is the system is broke.
Duh, it was way back then as well, nothing new. We had Deming[^] trying to install sound principles in US business but they didn't listen so he went to Japan. Now we all are going to pay the price. All we are seeing is the modern fire fighting approach to problem solving. We had an opportunity 60 years ago to listen to Deming and build our economy on sound principles, the deciders decided to go with greed instead. Now we are trying to apply a band aid to a human characteristic that is seriously broken. Always has been and probably always will be and is the reason the free market cannot work long term. It is possible that the only flaw in the free market theory is that humans have to implement it. So basically I agree with your point. However it doesn't change what I posted about you and Jefferson.
led mike wrote:
However it doesn't change what I posted about you and Jefferson.
You people all use Jefferson for your own self serving purposes. The only politically significant aspect of Thomas Jefferson's entire existence was (a) the declaration of independence, and (b) anti-federalism. The form of democracy Jefferson worked to create was first and foremost about decentralizing political power - taking it out of the hands of a central authority and giving it to the people at the state and local level of government so that they might create the kind of societies they wished to live within the bounds of a strict interpretation of the constitution. He may have had many thoughts on many other topics, but they are irrelevant to any discussion of AMerican politics. That isn't some fantasy version of Jefferson, thats the real deal for any historically valid point of view. The people called "social conservatives" today were pretty much in full control of society during Jefferson's lifetime, and, aside from the occassional letter of political advice to someone or other, he seems to have been perfectly comfortable with that situation. In fact, he seems to have done everything he possibly could to foster and encourage it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes. The obvious association between religion and civilization is inherently more rational than is the notion that civilization can exist without it.
No. The Bible says that the Earth has four corners [Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1 ], rests on pillars [ Job 9:6 ], has edges [ Job 38:12-13 ] and is flat [ Isaiah 40:18-23, Job 38:14, Matthew 4:1-12 ]. It's obviously completely ridiculous and civilisations have only progressed as much as they have on the back of scientific progress. There is no evidence of a quarter of the Egyptian population just up and leaving one day, no evidence of a great flood, no ark, no canopies of water. Society doesn't need it, and you've failed so far to prove that it does.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Society doesn't need it, and you've failed so far to prove that it does.
Yet you cannot refute the altogether scientific observation that there is a 100% correlation between civilization and religion. Now, correlation might not be causation, but such a close association certainly suggest some causal relationship of some kind. The less religious our own civilization has become, the more dysfunctional it becomes, following precisely the same pattern demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. If that isn't proof, it is certainly reason for concern.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Once you have socialized one thing, you have socialized everything.
What? Really? Then let's go find the first US socialized instance in history to determine when the US became a socialist state. Not sure but would that be the Postal Service? 1775
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">led mike wrote:</div>Not sure but would that be the Postal Service? 1775</blockquote> The postal service is not a socialist program, neither is building roads or other 'general welfare' type projects. Socialistic programs are those predicated upon the the transfer of wealth from one group to another - such as universal health care. But now we are legalizing drug abuse so that we can try to repair an ecnomic system crippled by those very socialistic programs. But doing that is going to increase the need for more money on those very programs. The problem is only going to get worse. It is an inevitable and insidious process which has only one possible conclusion - full blown communism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Society doesn't need it, and you've failed so far to prove that it does.
Yet you cannot refute the altogether scientific observation that there is a 100% correlation between civilization and religion. Now, correlation might not be causation, but such a close association certainly suggest some causal relationship of some kind. The less religious our own civilization has become, the more dysfunctional it becomes, following precisely the same pattern demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. If that isn't proof, it is certainly reason for concern.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
What makes you say that civilisation is dysfunctional? :confused: Civilisations throughout history have only fallen because they were conquered by another, or because they could no longer physically sustain themselves. They've never crumbled out of disillusionment. And you're ignoring the main point, that Christianity and other religions are ludicrous and have no bearing on reality.
-
What makes you say that civilisation is dysfunctional? :confused: Civilisations throughout history have only fallen because they were conquered by another, or because they could no longer physically sustain themselves. They've never crumbled out of disillusionment. And you're ignoring the main point, that Christianity and other religions are ludicrous and have no bearing on reality.
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
-
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
Is there an alternative, do you think, that doesn't rely on people closing their eyes to the world?
-
Is there an alternative, do you think, that doesn't rely on people closing their eyes to the world?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Is there an alternative, do you think, that doesn't rely on people closing their eyes to the world?
Well, that's the problem, isn't it?
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Is there an alternative, do you think, that doesn't rely on people closing their eyes to the world?
Well, that's the problem, isn't it?
Yeah... Oh well, screw it. To hell with people! They can do whatever, I don't care.
-
Is there an alternative, do you think, that doesn't rely on people closing their eyes to the world?
But who is it that is really closing their eyes to the world? I would suggest that it is you who are rejecting, for entirely biased, anti-intellectual reasons, an altogether scientifically valid observation. Namely, that there has been an ongoing interplay between religion and civilization from the very earliest stages of human cultural development. That association has obviously been at least somewhat beneficial, else the existence of advanced cultures would never have occured in order to get to the point that they could even begin considering a purely mechanistic view of reality. Now, it may be entirely valid to point out that the mechanistic world view largely contradicts much of the earlier, less mechanistic perspective. But it also presents an pertinent question - can a culture predicated upon purely mechanistic rationalizations for its existence continue to be a culture at all? And, further, why is that not an entirely scientific hypothesis to suggest, worthy of research and debate in its own right? Why is it dismissed out of hand by the very people who purport to want to understand the world from a purely scientific perspective? Does human civilization require religion?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
73Zeppelin wrote:
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
Except that I would suggest that it can be paralleled by governemtn-sanctioned morality. But that that is really the scariest part of all. Throughout most of human history there was little difference between the state and religion. The major accomplishment of modern western civilization is the separation of moral ethics from direct political control. I would suggest that the major reason that there is, in fact, so much effort to marginalize religion in the name of separation of church and state is for precisely the purpose of returning essential religious authority to the state. Just as people will accept socialism if it is called something else, they will also accept the state dictating morality to them as long as it isn't called religion. The importance of religion, especially as it came to be undestood in the west by the development of christian theology in sync with political ideologies, is that it can provide a unifying identity and system of morals that can be separated from the state. And that is precisely what makes it so dangerous to those who wish to control us all from the center.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
But who is it that is really closing their eyes to the world? I would suggest that it is you who are rejecting, for entirely biased, anti-intellectual reasons, an altogether scientifically valid observation. Namely, that there has been an ongoing interplay between religion and civilization from the very earliest stages of human cultural development. That association has obviously been at least somewhat beneficial, else the existence of advanced cultures would never have occured in order to get to the point that they could even begin considering a purely mechanistic view of reality. Now, it may be entirely valid to point out that the mechanistic world view largely contradicts much of the earlier, less mechanistic perspective. But it also presents an pertinent question - can a culture predicated upon purely mechanistic rationalizations for its existence continue to be a culture at all? And, further, why is that not an entirely scientific hypothesis to suggest, worthy of research and debate in its own right? Why is it dismissed out of hand by the very people who purport to want to understand the world from a purely scientific perspective? Does human civilization require religion?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But who is it that is really closing their eyes to the world? I would suggest that it is you who are rejecting, for entirely biased, anti-intellectual reasons, an altogether scientifically valid observation. Namely, that there has been an ongoing interplay between religion and civilization from the very earliest stages of human cultural development. That association has obviously been at least somewhat beneficial, else the existence of advanced cultures would never have occured in order to get to the point that they could even begin considering a purely mechanistic view of reality.
I'm not necessarily rejecting it, I'm saying that there should be a better alternative for society than a book that says that God created rainbows as a promise to never flood the world again. I mean, come on. Was there no such thing as refraction before Noah? If society is going to be based on something, at least have that something consistent with reality. I accept that most people probably have to believe in something bigger than themselves, but... :doh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it also presents an pertinent question - can a culture predicated upon purely mechanistic rationalizations for its existence continue to be a culture at all? And, further, why is that not an entirely scientific hypothesis to suggest, worthy of research and debate in its own right? Why is it dismissed out of hand by the very people who purport to want to understand the world from a purely scientific perspective? Does human civilization require religion?
I don't know. :sigh: I at least want the definitive guide to morality to have internal consistency. That'd be a fine start.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
While I don't disagree with your opinion on religion, the point Stan is trying to make is that religion provides a uninfying identity and system of morals that cannot be paralled by nationalism and government-sanctioned morality.
Except that I would suggest that it can be paralleled by governemtn-sanctioned morality. But that that is really the scariest part of all. Throughout most of human history there was little difference between the state and religion. The major accomplishment of modern western civilization is the separation of moral ethics from direct political control. I would suggest that the major reason that there is, in fact, so much effort to marginalize religion in the name of separation of church and state is for precisely the purpose of returning essential religious authority to the state. Just as people will accept socialism if it is called something else, they will also accept the state dictating morality to them as long as it isn't called religion. The importance of religion, especially as it came to be undestood in the west by the development of christian theology in sync with political ideologies, is that it can provide a unifying identity and system of morals that can be separated from the state. And that is precisely what makes it so dangerous to those who wish to control us all from the center.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Yeah, okay. But religion itself is also dangerous - it is a coercive tool for social control. So neither the government, nor religion should get a free pass on being a monopoly. This is why it is just as important to question religion as it is to question government. Christianity has done its fair share of oppression and suppression over the last 2000 years.
-
Yeah, okay. But religion itself is also dangerous - it is a coercive tool for social control. So neither the government, nor religion should get a free pass on being a monopoly. This is why it is just as important to question religion as it is to question government. Christianity has done its fair share of oppression and suppression over the last 2000 years.
73Zeppelin wrote:
it is a coercive tool for social control. So neither the government, nor religion should get a free pass on being a monopoly.
Which is the entire point of separation of church and state - keep the moral authority out of the hands of the people who have a monopoly on the use of force. Religion may be a tool for social control, but it is no more coercive than any other means of social control, and without some means of social control, you have no society worthy of the name.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But who is it that is really closing their eyes to the world? I would suggest that it is you who are rejecting, for entirely biased, anti-intellectual reasons, an altogether scientifically valid observation. Namely, that there has been an ongoing interplay between religion and civilization from the very earliest stages of human cultural development. That association has obviously been at least somewhat beneficial, else the existence of advanced cultures would never have occured in order to get to the point that they could even begin considering a purely mechanistic view of reality.
I'm not necessarily rejecting it, I'm saying that there should be a better alternative for society than a book that says that God created rainbows as a promise to never flood the world again. I mean, come on. Was there no such thing as refraction before Noah? If society is going to be based on something, at least have that something consistent with reality. I accept that most people probably have to believe in something bigger than themselves, but... :doh:
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it also presents an pertinent question - can a culture predicated upon purely mechanistic rationalizations for its existence continue to be a culture at all? And, further, why is that not an entirely scientific hypothesis to suggest, worthy of research and debate in its own right? Why is it dismissed out of hand by the very people who purport to want to understand the world from a purely scientific perspective? Does human civilization require religion?
I don't know. :sigh: I at least want the definitive guide to morality to have internal consistency. That'd be a fine start.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I at least want the definitive guide to morality to have internal consistency.
My advise would be to be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
it is a coercive tool for social control. So neither the government, nor religion should get a free pass on being a monopoly.
Which is the entire point of separation of church and state - keep the moral authority out of the hands of the people who have a monopoly on the use of force. Religion may be a tool for social control, but it is no more coercive than any other means of social control, and without some means of social control, you have no society worthy of the name.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
-
led mike wrote:
However it doesn't change what I posted about you and Jefferson.
You people all use Jefferson for your own self serving purposes. The only politically significant aspect of Thomas Jefferson's entire existence was (a) the declaration of independence, and (b) anti-federalism. The form of democracy Jefferson worked to create was first and foremost about decentralizing political power - taking it out of the hands of a central authority and giving it to the people at the state and local level of government so that they might create the kind of societies they wished to live within the bounds of a strict interpretation of the constitution. He may have had many thoughts on many other topics, but they are irrelevant to any discussion of AMerican politics. That isn't some fantasy version of Jefferson, thats the real deal for any historically valid point of view. The people called "social conservatives" today were pretty much in full control of society during Jefferson's lifetime, and, aside from the occassional letter of political advice to someone or other, he seems to have been perfectly comfortable with that situation. In fact, he seems to have done everything he possibly could to foster and encourage it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">led mike wrote:</div>Not sure but would that be the Postal Service? 1775</blockquote> The postal service is not a socialist program, neither is building roads or other 'general welfare' type projects. Socialistic programs are those predicated upon the the transfer of wealth from one group to another - such as universal health care. But now we are legalizing drug abuse so that we can try to repair an ecnomic system crippled by those very socialistic programs. But doing that is going to increase the need for more money on those very programs. The problem is only going to get worse. It is an inevitable and insidious process which has only one possible conclusion - full blown communism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
The road we are currently on has only one destination - and that is communism. Anyone who doesn't realize that is a fool.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You people all use Jefferson for your own self serving purposes.
ROTFLMAO! That is one of the funniest things you have ever said!
Laugh all you like. It is true. My Jefferson is the one who worked to create the actual US government. Your's is the fantasy used to justify Marxist revisionism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's not why socialized medicine is available.
Once you have socialized one thing, you have socialized everything.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.