Wtf?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Should science have bearing on governmental policy?

 

Should other fields of philosophy have bearing on governmental policy? How about ethics?

 

Should biology and ecology have bearing on governmental policy?

 

Should science have bearing on governmental policy?

 

Should rationality have bearing on governmental policy?

 

Should, uhm... economics have bearing on governmental policy?

 

If you belive in democracy, let people vote for who they prefer. And when debating your preference against those of other voters, don't lack respect. Democracy is based on respect, accept it.

First off no matter which you choose mob rules is the name of the game.

Secondly the mob tends to follow whatever the govt tells them to

Thirdly special interest groups with deep pockets tell the govt what to do (besides the comander in chiefs own agendas...but he gets into power because the special interests groups put him there because of his personal agendas.. example Mr Bush!! (AKA. @ss#ole!!!!) I have yet to find one person that voted for him and yet there he is!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Anyone that believes that their vote is what determines who gets into office is living in fairytale land!!!! Isn't it interesting that there are allways discrepancies in vote tallies!!! And that the govt. is involved with the manufacture, calibration, and collection of voting machines and data!!!

 

Now we've got electronic voting machines...that incidently have been proven to be able to be set up to "give" votes to any particular party the govt chooses no matter who the voter votes for!!!!!!!!

 

Want to be president get deep pockets, schmooze with the special interest groups to get their support, agree to follow their plans and schemes!!!!!!!!(no matter how stupid they seem)

 

Lastly:

RATIONALITY IN GOVT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? :)

:) :hihi: :umno: :eek2: :) :eek2: :) :eek2: :omg: :doh: :umno: :eek2: :omg: :doh: :) :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

[motherengine]

Yes. I am intolerant. And I am intolerant for all the reasons I gave here, in this thread, in post #1. And I am not offering any excuses or apologies. I still beg for a good, valid reason why my intelorance here should weigh less than, say, the intolerance of religious people towards rational thought. Basically, why should I shut the hell up but they get to blow up stuff?

 

"they get to blow stuff up and i can't even make fun of their beliefs?"

 

do whatever you want. you typed something. i typed a comment. if venting makes you feel in control of something that you are decidedly not in control of then by all means go ahead. i said nothing about whether you should or should not be intolerant. i expressed the opinion that your intolerance does nothing to resolve an issue going on outside of your head. and weight is not an issue.

[motherengine]

Sorry - you had me rolling around laughing there for a while.

Shall I phrase it the other way around?

I wonder if the dogmatic religious belief in a superior being for whom zero empirical evidence exists might not just be indicative of a deep-seated childish fear of the unknown, an animalistic fear of death, a fundamental unwillingness to take responsibility for our actions, and just plain basic ignorance?

 

could be. i wasn't commenting on the motivations of those who believe in a god, but on the motivations of those who feel the need to mock those who believe in a god. laugh on brother.

[motherengine]

The Truth isn't supposed to get anybody anywhere. It's just plain and simply, well, The Truth. Expecting more from that will only result in the personal subjective bending of it to suit any purpose you could care to mention.

 

like the purpose of believing that you have an angle on "The Truth"?

[motherengine]

What are you smoking? I think you missed the point to my first post in this thread. This isn't about mental superiority complexes or any such thing, this is simply about why we should tolerate people believing in fairytales to run our world. My world is based on empirical evidence, not on some hearsay account of things that allegedly happened a few thousand years ago without any proof to go with it.

 

Let me put it to you simply:

 

If there are a few people who believe that sticking your head in a drainpipe will cure halitosis, and some other people that see that as real funny, decide to draw a caricature of it, are you telling me that they shouldn't? Should we accept their delusion, and restrict our own methods and mediums of expression (and humour, for that matter), for as long as people stick their heads up drainpipes, simply because they believe it?!?

 

I'm sorry - call me a heretic, an atheist, the devil incarnate, whatever. I just don't buy it. And, for the record, I am willing to discriminate equally across religious lines - they are all (in my mind) the same thing.

 

if you don't want people who believe in "fairytales" to run our world then why don't you put your intolerance to practice. your opinion does nothing but serve your self. my point was that the specfic act of intolerance which you mentioned caused a specific violence to occur. how exactly did this help anyone?

 

and if you think that all of this is about religion you are way off. this is about the repercussions of bad american politics mixed with ideas of mental superiority, fear and insecurity. god or not, humans are violent creatures. physical violence. mental violence. the difference is in degrees.

[motherengine]

What are you smoking? I think you missed the point to my first post in this thread. This isn't about mental superiority complexes or any such thing, this is simply about why we should tolerate people believing in fairytales to run our world. My world is based on empirical evidence, not on some hearsay account of things that allegedly happened a few thousand years ago without any proof to go with it.

 

Let me put it to you simply:

 

If there are a few people who believe that sticking your head in a drainpipe will cure halitosis, and some other people that see that as real funny, decide to draw a caricature of it, are you telling me that they shouldn't? Should we accept their delusion, and restrict our own methods and mediums of expression (and humour, for that matter), for as long as people stick their heads up drainpipes, simply because they believe it?!?

 

I'm sorry - call me a heretic, an atheist, the devil incarnate, whatever. I just don't buy it. And, for the record, I am willing to discriminate equally across religious lines - they are all (in my mind) the same thing.

 

if you don't want people who believe in "fairytales" to run our world then why don't you put your intolerance to practice? your opinion serves only yourself. my point was that the specific act of intolerance which you mentioned (the cartoon) caused a specific violence to occur. how exactly did this help anyone?

[motherengine]

Religion is a mass delusion, and the single most harmful thing yet invented by Man (apart from lighting farts with a tendency to backfire).

 

What should I do?

 

Should I just 'let it be', thereby condone it?

 

Thoughts?

 

nevermind.

[Qfwfq]

Cool it ME, peace! :)

 

I'm sure that if Boerseun went to see Sergei Tarkowski's Stalker he would side with the physicist and his pocket A-bomb. :confused:

[motherengine]

Cool it ME, peace! :hihi:

 

I'm sure that if Boerseun went to see Sergei Tarkowski's Stalker he would side with the physicist and his pocket A-bomb. :hihi:

 

andrei tarkovsky did understand the problem with aggressive atheism. it is a wonderful place for those who think science is only there to serve man's ego. but then why should the 'dogs' care for the meek, this is obviously their world. personally i wish i could shake my lack of faith. it is useless to me as an artist and a human being.

[motherengine]

Cool it ME, peace! :hihi:

 

I'm sure that if Boerseun went to see Sergei Tarkowski's Stalker he would side with the physicist and his pocket A-bomb. :hihi:

 

hfdndwebjf

[Boerseun]

Mother Engine:

 

I can see your point in respecting faiths and other people's beliefs etc.

 

However, from a practical point of view, and dare I say it, a consistent point of view, where should we draw the line?

 

If we are to stop drawing cartoons of Mohammed because it might offend a bunch of Muslims, we should be consistent and also stop using pictures of Spaghetti Bolognaise in pasta adverts, seeing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster will be offended. We should also stop using hubcaps on our cars, seeing as the Holy Order of the Chromed Hubcap will take offense. We should stop using the Star of David as a quick way of teaching toddlers how to draw a star, or, god forbid, a pentagram, for that matter. We should flame Robert Pirsig for writing a book called "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", for invoking Bhuddism in the title of a book that has very little to do with either Bhuddism, or Motorcycle Mechanics, for that matter. We should protest and switch our television sets off every time the words "Oh my God" is uttered on TV.

 

Where are we going to draw the line? I bet anything you do between waking up and going to bed will piss some religious nut somewhere off, from some looney obscure religion that you haven't even heard of yet. But if you want to be consistent, you shouldn't be doing that.

 

My point is simple: Religion is bunk. Why, oh why, should I place all these limitations on my life and on my actions to keep people not happy, but merely unoffended? People that would be certifiably delusional if current psychological yardsticks are consistently applied?

 

Fred comes up to you, and introduces you to his imaginary friend Bob. Are you going to chuckle at first, and then try and help Fred shake his delusion, or are you going to stick your hand out and say "Pleestameetcha, Bob?". If the latter, are you doing it to please Fred, or because you are sure that Fred won't lie to you - even though you can't see Bob, if Fred says Bob is there, then Bob must be there? Then you might even start to doubt yourself, for you can't see Bob, but it seems everybody else can? Are they lying to you? Are they all lying to themselves? Are you just blind to Bob? Or is it because there is such a vast and ancient industrial-sized support structure for Bob that the whole idea gains some creedence, based on size alone? The whole thing feeds on itself. People have been introducing each other to Bob for the last coupla thousand years. Maybe its the longest-running practical joke in the history of mankind. But it has grown to such dimensions that its creating its own authority!

 

Imagine:

Fred: "Meet Bob"

You: "I don't see him."

Fred: "You have to open yourself to Bob, and you will see him."

You: "Why should I believe you?"

Fred: "Because I am well-versed in the ways of Bob."

You: "And why's that?"

Fred: "Because I am a man of Bob."

You: "Ohhh... you're right, I do kinda see something, right over there..."

 

So, you can't question the existence of Bob, because Bob's his own authority. How dumb is that?

[Queso]

hfdndwebjf

 

Hence feather downpours-

Nocturnal dithers Web

jason's face.

[Qfwfq]

:steering: It is indeed Andrei, your right! :Headset: Or Andrej Tarkovskij as some spell it or, better... wheee! I'm discovering we maybe can even post in Cyrillic!

Сталкер, Андрей Тарковский :esmoking:

 

If we are to stop drawing cartoons of Mohammed because it might offend a bunch of Muslims, we should be consistent and also stop using pictures of Spaghetti Bolognaise in pasta adverts, seeing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster will be offended.

And just who tells you that His Noodley Self is offended by such pictures?

 

Boerseun, you still haven't got the message through that the publication of those cartoons was an act of racial and cultural intolerance with an intent of further stirring it up.

 

We should flame Robert Pirsig for writing a book called "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", for invoking Bhuddism in the title of a book that has very little to do with either Bhuddism, or Motorcycle Mechanics, for that matter.

Eh? :computer:

 

Have you actually read the friggin' book? It talks about how Zen can be a guide to many things, including everyday practical things, including fixing your bike and caring for it better than by taking it to the average garage and up to contemplating nature, writing essays and meditating upon philosophy. It weaves it into a story of introspection, of a guy that had been treated with very radical therapy and was trying to find his previous self and get over his afflictions.

 

We should protest and switch our television sets off every time the words "Oh my God" is uttered on TV.

It isn't offensive to God to seek comfort and support from Him, in the face of something shocking or distressing, or to express gratitude for a pleasant surprise. Uttering those words doesn't seem offensive to me.

 

Are you going to chuckle at first, and then try and help Fred shake his delusion, or are you going to stick your hand out and say "Pleestameetcha, Bob?".

Ask a psychologist about how it's appropriate to deal with someone with an imaginary friend. Many people have a strong need to create their own reality. An imaginary friend is a disorder that can happen. Religion is a lot more normal.

[Boerseun]

And just who tells you that His Noodley Self is offended by such pictures?

We gotta be consistent, right? Not *ALL* Muslims were offended, some actually found it rather amusing. The bit in the Quran forbidding any depiction of the prophet is to prevent the believers from praying to icons or graphical representations of the prophet - cartoons being caricatures clearly would not lead to that. Unless you are very, very stupid.

So just by the odd chance that the FSM might be pissed off at it, we shouldn't do it. Consistency, you see.

Boerseun, you still haven't got the message through that the publication of those cartoons was an act of racial and cultural intolerance with an intent of further stirring it up.

Not really, and I don't think that was the intention, either. The cartoons were published months in advance of the uproar breaking out, in a teeny tiny little rag of dubious origins with a circulation totalling around 5,000. I am sure if the intention was to stir up 'racial and cultural intolerance', they would have chosen a rag with, you know, slightly more readers.

Eh? :computer:

 

Have you actually read the friggin' book?

Er... yes. Have you?

It talks about how Zen can be a guide to many things, including everyday practical things, including fixing your bike and caring for it better than by taking it to the average garage and up to contemplating nature, writing essays and meditating upon philosophy.

Actually, no, it doesn't. Zen featured in the title 'cause it sounded cool at the time. The book is a philosophical inquiry into 'Quality'. It has zip, zero, nada to do with Zen. Trust me. If you don't, go and read the book.

It weaves it into a story of introspection, of a guy that had been treated with very radical therapy and was trying to find his previous self and get over his afflictions.

Yeah - electroshock-therapy's a *****, ain't it? And his little kid Christopher that had permanent gut-pains etc. etc. etc. But zero Zen, or Bhuddism in general. Quality, my son, Quality...

It isn't offensive to God to seek comfort and support from Him, in the face of something shocking or distressing, or to express gratitude for a pleasant surprise. Uttering those words doesn't seem offensive to me.

Then you are not well-versed in the ways of Bob, I see. The Bible specifically forbids us mere mortals from using Bob's name in vain, and that is what we do when we say "Oh my God! Have you seen the tits on that hooker? I'm gonna get me some!". We're not invoking God at all, we're using it 'cause we're used to it. It's a figure of speech. It cheapens the name of God. And if we're consistent Christians, we should stone the person saying it to death for 1)Using Bob's name in vain, and 2)Shagging hookers.

(The hooker should be stoned as well).

We don't get to pick and choose what we like out of the Bible - we should we consistent, or just drop the whole thing as a bad joke.

Ask a psychologist about how it's appropriate to deal with someone with an imaginary friend. Many people have a strong need to create their own reality. An imaginary friend is a disorder that can happen. Religion is a lot more normal.

There is absolutely no difference between my friend Bob and God. Although there's more people believing in God. The only difference here is numbers, but as was pointed out a few times here in Hypography, the Truth isn't a democracy. The Truth isn't decided by popular vote. How on earth could religion be any more 'normal' than my belief in Bob? Religion might be slightly more common that what I'd like to call 'Bobism', but surely, not in any way you can think of, more normal. I'd say Bobism is actually the more normal of the two, because when you suffer from Bobism, a psychologist will actually be consistent in applying his diagnostic skills to your delusion and correctly diagnose, treat and cure it. If you believe in God, the shrink will not apply his diagnostic tools, because even if all the lights will flash red and the blinkers will come on screaming "CRAZY DELUSIONAL NUTCASE", the shrink will just shrug and say, "Yeah, well - the tests came out positive, this guy is a nut, but, you know, it's religion - we'll just ignore the results for now..."

 

Bob is real. In his benevolence, he switches the light on every time I open the fridge in the middle of the night.

[Qfwfq]

I think I've said enough in the past about the iconoclastic ban being used as an excuse by the terrorists and about other reasons for the irresponsibility of the papers that published the cartoons, apparently you refuse to understand. Your figures don't show that the intent wasn't intolerance. The cartoons initial appearance in Jyllands-Posten wasn't the sole cause, it was the whole iter, with so many people blindly supporting free press and failing too see other important factors.

 

Actually, no, it doesn't. Zen featured in the title 'cause it sounded cool at the time. The book is a philosophical inquiry into 'Quality'. It has zip, zero, nada to do with Zen. Trust me. If you don't, go and read the book.

I did read the book, many years ago, but even then I wasn't quite young enough to be your son. I don't claim it being the book to learn about Zen from, I only claim what I said. It does have to do with Zen, although only as a way of viewing the world and a way of life, and it does have to do with fixing bikes. I clearly said that these two things do not describe the entire content but simply form a basis of reflection on which the author builds. No string of slick cool lingo will convince me that a Zen monk could take offence by that book.

 

Bob is real. In his benevolence, he switches the light on every time I open the fridge in the middle of the night.

:computer:

 

God does a lot more than that...

[Qfwfq]

I was forgetting, I fully agree about some uses of OMG being against the commandment, at least according to the Christian interpretation because I believe the Jewish is more radical, but you said every utterance of it and I was arguing against that.

 

Consistency, you see.

[Boerseun]

I think I've said enough in the past about the iconoclastic ban being used as an excuse by the terrorists and about other reasons for the irresponsibility of the papers that published the cartoons, apparently you refuse to understand. Your figures don't show that the intent wasn't intolerance. The cartoons initial appearance in Jyllands-Posten wasn't the sole cause, it was the whole iter, with so many people blindly supporting free press and failing too see other important factors.

Q, I think I have also said quite enough about my freedom of speech not being negotiable to placate any given delusion. I think we should agree to disagree on that score. But, once again, that isn't primarily what this thread is about. My gripe isn't with the results of delusional people's impressions of those cartoons, rather, my gripe is what gave rise to their delusions in the first place, and why it should have an impact on my life.

I did read the book, many years ago, but even then I wasn't quite young enough to be your son.

I apologize for that comment. It should be glaringly obvious that even if the age difference was sufficient, physical realities (like the thousands of miles seperating me and your mother, for instance) would make it impossible for you to be my son. Nothing was implied with that comment, and if you experienced it as a 'talking-down', arrogant, paternalistic kinda tone, you should either a) Accept the fact that it is a figure of speech where I come from, or :computer: Grow a thicker skin.

I don't claim it being the book to learn about Zen from, I only claim what I said. It does have to do with Zen, although only as a way of viewing the world and a way of life, and it does have to do with fixing bikes. I clearly said that these two things do not describe the entire content but simply form a basis of reflection on which the author builds. No string of slick cool lingo will convince me that a Zen monk could take offence by that book.

No - indeed not. No Zen monk could ever take offense by that book, simply because it has zero to do with Zen. Not a single paragraph. The book is a philosophical inquiry into 'Quality', and the definition thereof. It's got nothing to do with motorcycle maintenance, either. The little bits of maintenance done in the book serves as a metaphor for his quest into 'Quality' and the definition thereof. But you miss my point in the earlier post where I first mentioned mr. Pirsig's book completely. We, as non-Bhuddists can't take the mantle upon ourselves and decide what will piss Bhuddists off or not. We can't say "We shouldn't have placed those Muhammed cartoons, but Zen references are okay", simply because we aren't knowledgable about all possible religions out there.

And I put it to you that the cartoons was placed as an "inside joke", not to be distributed amongst Muslims. Why did they print it in a publication with a 5,000-circulation if they wanted to piss Muslims off? Does this maybe explain why it took so long for the issue to erupt?

God does a lot more than that...

Running the risk of having this thread forced under duress to the Religion forum, and having myself branded as an heretic, and burnt upon the stake, I cannot refrain from asking: Like what?