Socialization, insults and clicks.

[jackson33]

Nutron; You started this thread with the desire, some posters would confirm your personal beliefs, looking for LIKE MINDED individuals to your perceived political ideology. Obviously Nitack and for that matter myself are not going to agree with you on many things. I might add however, Nitack had already said "nutjob" was to harsh. He obviously has the same basic understanding of American History, the Constitution and politics that I, but I guarantee you its not that of most folks that run or post on this forum. If fact and as mentioned before, it puzzles me why others have not come to your defense.

 

Having said this and ignoring the original intent of your post; I feel your confusing two things...1- Some people and very few (not on this forum) are simply just bad people or are capable of doing bad things to please others or be accepted in some social group (Gang's). Not many folks will go past accepted laws/morals/principles or what ever to gain acceptance, whether on a forum, on the street or in business or politics. People for the most part have conscience to the society they live in. 2- Its perfectly normal for all people to seek out like minded individuals. No issue or viewpoint or any number of issues are going to be agreed to by all people and to my knowledge, no one person thinks it should be. But we seek out those that are tolerable to our personal viewpoints. Every public election (City to States) is an example, choice of a spouse, raising children, religion, and everything in life involves mild attempts to persuade others to follow certain principles or agreement. I listen to Rush Limbaugh, for this reason and you have your choices. I prefer the Republican platform, you the Democratic and so on.

 

Of course, these differences exist in any one segment of any one society. It starts for most their first day in pre-school and continues on through life and everything you do. I see nothing wrong with this, hopefully showing respect for those that disagree with me. Those with passion (a good thing) are a little less tolerant, but at least their ideas have usually been studied. I might

add, each of us has changed to degree our opinions, as has society acceptance, laws and no doubt this will continue. Gang members becoming cops, politicians change parties, Hindu's becoming Christans...

 

Media bias is obviously intended to an audience or those that support the outlet. As for the senator from Alaska, from Massachusetts, from West Virginia or North Carolina all with very long and dubious past; I can only tell you these folks have a far different mentality today than when they first started. IMO, Bush II was as effective president, that the times could permit.

Its now up to the Historian's to judge those efforts. Be a little careful in judging Infinatenow or Inow, you may someday realize you have more in common than you now realize. If you make your points more pointed to single political issues, he and several others here, will come to your defense immediately.

[nutronjon]

I agree.

 

Nutronjon, I just read the article INow links. It is a very good New York Times exposé on just what you're discussing.

 

~modest

 

Sorry, I have come to expect nothing but insults from InfiniteNow and jumped to a conclusion too fast. Let's see if I understand the use of trolling correctly. Could the theology thread be considered trolling considering it allows only one definition of God, that God is a supernatural being, and does not tolerate any other explanation God?

 

I have stayed here because I thought people with an interest in science were rational people, but when it comes to the God issue, I see a lack of rationale. I see a blinding bias that makes the theology thread a snake pit for anyone who desires serious discussion of theology, other than to bash what religious people believe, and from here grows a nasty problem of attacking people and tolerating it, because you all are a clinque, with a system of deciding who will be included and who will excluded. The theology thread is the snake pit you invite new comers into, to determine if they are one of you or not. I think this is an injustice, especially because it goes with insulting people and ganging up on them.

[nutronjon]

Nutron; You started this thread with the desire, some posters would confirm your personal beliefs, looking for LIKE MINDED individuals to your perceived political ideology. Obviously Nitack and for that matter myself are not going to agree with you on many things. I might add however, Nitack had already said "nutjob" was to harsh. He obviously has the same basic understanding of American History, the Constitution and politics that I, but I guarantee you its not that of most folks that run or post on this forum. If fact and as mentioned before, it puzzles me why others have not come to your defense.

 

Having said this and ignoring the original intent of your post; I feel your confusing two things...1- Some people and very few (not on this forum) are simply just bad people or are capable of doing bad things to please others or be accepted in some social group (Gang's). Not many folks will go past accepted laws/morals/principles or what ever to gain acceptance, whether on a forum, on the street or in business or politics. People for the most part have conscience to the society they live in. 2- Its perfectly normal for all people to seek out like minded individuals. No issue or viewpoint or any number of issues are going to be agreed to by all people and to my knowledge, no one person thinks it should be. But we seek out those that are tolerable to our personal viewpoints. Every public election (City to States) is an example, choice of a spouse, raising children, religion, and everything in life involves mild attempts to persuade others to follow certain principles or agreement. I listen to Rush Limbaugh, for this reason and you have your choices. I prefer the Republican platform, you the Democratic and so on.

 

Of course, these differences exist in any one segment of any one society. It starts for most their first day in pre-school and continues on through life and everything you do. I see nothing wrong with this, hopefully showing respect for those that disagree with me. Those with passion (a good thing) are a little less tolerant, but at least their ideas have usually been studied. I might

add, each of us has changed to degree our opinions, as has society acceptance, laws and no doubt this will continue. Gang members becoming cops, politicians change parties, Hindu's becoming Christans...

 

Media bias is obviously intended to an audience or those that support the outlet. As for the senator from Alaska, from Massachusetts, from West Virginia or North Carolina all with very long and dubious past; I can only tell you these folks have a far different mentality today than when they first started. IMO, Bush II was as effective president, that the times could permit.

Its now up to the Historian's to judge those efforts. Be a little careful in judging Infinatenow or Inow, you may someday realize you have more in common than you now realize. If you make your points more pointed to single political issues, he and several others here, will come to your defense immediately.

 

You hit on the magic word principles. The task of a civilization is to civilize people, or there is anarchy, and the civilization is destroyed. This is the center of my concern.

 

No issue or viewpoint or any number of issues are going to be agreed to by all people and to my knowledge, no one person thinks it should be. But we seek out those that are tolerable to our personal viewpoints.

 

There is a rule against insulting people. Insulting people is a bad behavior, and I suppose preaching can be consider a bad behavior, but holding a different understanding of God is not a behavior. That is only having a different point of view, and not allowing a different point of view is a violation of freedom of speech, if for nothing else than principle, we should not violate the principle of freedom of speech. Even when I framed my explanation of God as philosophical and say the way to study God is through science, I am penalized for expressing my point of view. So what is being encouraged and what is being discouraged, and what do we want for civilization? What principles are we going to kill or live by? Here is the difference between a clique and a democracy. And what does our human nature have to do with this discussion? I would not return here, but this is an exciting look at human nature and why people get along or pit themselves against each other. On a personal level we can behave one way, but on a civilized level, something else is demanded of us. We must not close out thinking of a higher power, and differnt opinions of what this is, because if nothing else, civilizations are like amebas that assimulate or spit out individuals, and we need to comtemplate the quality of our civilization that we want and the power of group consciousness. Here is the difference between a clique and a democracy. One serves the individual and the other serves all.

 

Every public election (City to States) is an example, choice of a spouse, raising children, religion, and everything in life involves mild attempts to persuade others to follow certain principles or agreement. I listen to Rush Limbaugh, for this reason and you have your choices. I prefer the Republican platform, you the Democratic and so on.

 

And some of us see both points of view, and more. Democracy begins with the gods, several different points of view, and this rapidly increased the pool of intelligence, because everything was studied from many different points of view. This is why freedom of speech is so vital. Disagreeing with someone is fine, and an opportunity to present better reasoning. It should not a time to insult or use power to silence people, because holding a different idea is not a bad behavior. I am seeing a human urge to win the argument with power, instead of reason, that is beneath us. When push comes to shove, a person is banned simply for holding a different point of view. :evil:

 

The good thing about science, is it is not political. I think perhaps the forums should avoid both religion and politics, and wish I had avoid both, but now I am too drawn to the subjects to disengage myself, and get pulled in even deeper when I see principles are unknown and violiated, and think of the future our our country. If people must fight for freedom of speech, and endure harrassment for that right to speak freely, in the US, what is there to defend?

 

I like these 3 rules:

 

We respect everyone because we are respectful.

We protect the dignity of others.

We act with intigrity.

 

I think if humanity lived with these 3 rules, we could avoid a lot of human problems. The behavior of a clique violates these rules, and those who have the most popularity in a clique are the one's who violate the rules most skilfully. When a civilization is cliques or gangs or interest groups pitted against each other, it is no longer strong and united. We can disagree on many thing, but principles is not one of the things we be disagreeing about.

 

Bottom line, there is difference between bad behaviors and bad ideas, and we are in trouble if we do not understanding the difference.

[jackson33]

nutron;

 

Principles are subjective to the society and with in a society can differ to a great degree. Your principles include a need or desire for a god, others interpret your god in a different way or feel its total nonsense to begin with.

All uncomputable principles and in essence critical of the others. Don't leave out attempts in 'constructive' when being addressed.

 

I don't run this forum or moderate on any forum, by choice in some cases. Short of spamming and IMO people should speak their mind, with in the rules posted for this or any forum. If some one perceived a post by you, in violation of a rule and you don't know a reason, I suggest a PM to Buffy, even if you simply disagree with the reason. Personally I would just move on and have at this forum, letting them cool off. Think you might be surprised to know that Infinite has also been reprimanded for some really outrages remarks over a long period. Disagreements happen...

 

You keep going back to Democracy, as if its some kind of supernatural thing or that any collective of people are capable of a perfect society over any form of government. Perfect is not ever going to happen in a multi cultural world and this world will never become that. Six and a half BILLION, is a lot of people, each with some idea what perfect is or should be. We just went through all that on 'Consensus'.

 

your three point's;

Respect everyone; No, I can't respect law felony breakers, people I perceive trying to destroy my country or a number of unacceptable principles, even under the umbrella of religion. Nor will I offer dignity, integrity or creditability to their causes. Not even to those societies that attempt the same on my country or society.

 

Bad behaviors, bad ideas, bad governments, bad people or bad anything is judged by the society...they all exist today and will tomorrow.

 

Our society, the US and each State offers the general public certain rights and guarantees these rights based on one law. The people that wrote that law on on many occasions wrote compliance would rest on the public acceptance.

[nutronjon]

nutron;

 

Principles are subjective to the society and with in a society can differ to a great degree. Your principles include a need or desire for a god, others interpret your god in a different way or feel its total nonsense to begin with.

All uncomputable principles and in essence critical of the others. Don't leave out attempts in 'constructive' when being addressed.

 

Publics schools taught a set of values and principles that are essential to our liberty. Only when democracy (a state of mind and culture, not a form of government) is defended in the classroom, is it defended. What we have could easily become an authoritarian police state, without all of us agreeing on the the values of principles of democracy, and since almost no one understands our liberty and democracy, and most seem to argue against democracy, that which we stand is lost to us, and the greatest threat to our liberty and democracy is, ourselves.

 

What do you understand of my ideas about God? Personally, I don't know what God is, or that one even exist. However, some philosophers have held that God is the stuff of the universe and science is the best way to know of such things. To understand our liberty and democracy, however, I think it is good for us to understand what Jefferson was talking when he wrote of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and what this has to do with ideas that developed in Athens, and how such a notion is anti superstitious.

 

 

I don't run this forum or moderate on any forum, by choice in some cases. Short of spamming and IMO people should speak their mind, with in the rules posted for this or any forum. If some one perceived a post by you, in violation of a rule and you don't know a reason, I suggest a PM to Buffy, even if you simply disagree with the reason. Personally I would just move on and have at this forum, letting them cool off. Think you might be surprised to know that Infinite has also been reprimanded for some really outrages remarks over a long period. Disagreements happen...

 

Buffy and others do not appear to know the difference between religion and metaphysics, and I believe this is where the problem comes up. I am not all surprised that InfiniteNow has been reprimanded. He is reprimanded for his behavior, and I am reprimanded for expressing speaking a thought. There is an important difference, between religion and metaphysics and a difference between a thought and a behavior. I was shocked when I was penalized for preaching and prosetyling, because I am normally arguing against Christians and never thought of myself as preaching and prosetyling. I think those words are religion and I am not religious person.

 

You keep going back to Democracy, as if its some kind of supernatural thing or that any collective of people are capable of a perfect society over any form of government. Perfect is not ever going to happen in a multi cultural world and this world will never become that. Six and a half BILLION, is a lot of people, each with some idea what perfect is or should be. We just went through all that on 'Consensus'.

 

Why did you have to pick up everyone else's prejudice and say I think of democracy as some supernatural thing? I object to superstitous notions as much as Jefferson did. I hate this distortion of what I am saying and firmly the whole problem is because others will not give up their own supernatural notions and are projecting them into what I say. No way are humans capable of anything more than human, and they sure as blazes are not perfect. Please, stop projecting your thoughts into what I am saying, and then we won't have any trouble with superstitious notions. I mean what you said about what I think is so rationale, I don't even know how to deal with it.

 

your three point's;

Respect everyone; No, I can't respect law felony breakers, people I perceive trying to destroy my country or a number of unacceptable principles, even under the umbrella of religion. Nor will I offer dignity, integrity or creditability to their causes. Not even to those societies that attempt the same on my country or society.

 

Respecting the person, has nothing to do with what that person thinks, or who that person is, or what color he is, or what position he holds etc.. I insisted my children be respectful to their drunken father, and my grandmother who had Alzhiemers disease, because it was their behavior that matter. Oh I know the argument that respect is subject, and that many see this as the only respect possible. However, we can also understand respect as a personal quality, and the foundation of this country is based on internal capcity of respect, and not the subject externals form of respect. Knowledge of history and objections to a hierarchy of power above the people, and the treatment of the privileged verse the treatment of laborer, are helpful here. And so this:

 

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization wich above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personalitiy, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumatance." Congress on Education for Democracy, August 1939

 

 

Bad behaviors, bad ideas, bad governments, bad people or bad anything is judged by the society...they all exist today and will tomorrow.

What does this have to do with the argument?

 

Our society, the US and each State offers the general public certain rights and guarantees these rights based on one law. The people that wrote that law on on many occasions wrote compliance would rest on the public acceptance.

Our rights need to be understood by each individual and we must all stand for our rights, and act in their defense when we belive they are threaten, or we loose them. We are steadily loosing them every day, and this is why I say the things I say. Education for technology has made our nation very vulnerable, and I hope we can turn this around.

[Overdog]

Why did you have to pick up everyone else's prejudice and say I think of democracy as some supernatural thing?

 

Who's prejudice are you talking about? How about a list of names?

 

I object to superstitous notions as much as Jefferson did.

 

Well that's not enough. Why not lose superstitious notions entirely?

 

I hate this distortion of what I am saying and firmly the whole problem is because others will not give up their own supernatural notions and are projecting them into what I say.

You have been the only one asserting supernatural notions, in fact is has gotten to the point where you ruin every discussion you engage in.

No way are humans capable of anything more than human, and they sure as blazes are not perfect.

That much is clear.

 

Please, stop projecting your thoughts into what I am saying, and then we won't have any trouble with superstitious notions.

 

That's exactly what us "prejudiced" people have been asking you to do for ages!

[Boerseun]

Nutronjon, you've contradicted yourself a few times in your last post.

 

You've held that Democracy is God. You've held that God is supernatural and unknowable. You've held that "God is the Stuff of the Universe", whatever that might mean.

 

You've held these rather unconventional views, and held that if only the rest of us will change our definitions of God and agree with yours, then all will be swell.

 

Of course the entire world will be a happy place if everybody simply changed their definitions of whatever topic comes to mind, to mine. But I must really be an idiot of stupendous proportions to actually believe that such a scenarion is even possible.

 

Nutron, you are currently acting exactly like the troll InfiniteNow told you about in that article he referred to. Do you understand why?

 

Do you understand why it's necessary to have a Theology Forum in a Science site, where the sociological implications of anything of a theological nature can be discussed? Do you understand why Science gives absolutely no creedence to the existence of a God for which no evidence exists, and gives absolutely the same amount of credibility to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Allah, etc., but will still discuss the sociological ramifications of the belief in these imaginary entities?

 

Also, it seems to me, you have a rather lacking understanding of philosophy, as your constant incontextual referrals to ancient Athens illustrate. You don't seem to know why ancient philosophy is called ancient philosophy, and not modern philosophy. Heck, for a person (persumably) "over the age of 30", you're pretty limited in your knowledge and understanding of the world. I sincerely suggest you go to the library and read up on the Scientific Method so that you can finally understand why we have a theology forum whilst rejecting the existence of god.

Also, read up a bit on your own Constitution, where the Founding Fathers have soundly kicked God out of the hallowed halls of government. The current Godliness of the American government is a 20th century issue - the original intent of your constitution was exactly the opposite. You've referred to this particular issue in one of your prior posts. Also, go and read up on Democracy, and what it is. Democracy is not God, and has nothing to do with God. God is not Nature - you've said God is Nature, and then in the very next line God is unknowable. That's a direct contradiction. Nature is inherently knowable and testable - anything else is "Super"natural, or in plain English, "Beyond Nature".

 

Quite frankly, maybe you're the troll INow told you about. Or maybe not. If not, then you've got a severe misunderstanding of the topics under discussion, notable Science, God and Democracy.

 

But regardless which of the two you are, I am now giving you a formal warning to basically "stop your whining", and to read for a change what others have to say - and to take heed of what they say. If you don't want to read up on any of these topics, at least go and read "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Because with your intolerant religious views (everyone must believe as you do), incomprehensible philosophical views (God is Democracy), ageism views (you don't have to care about anybody below 30's opinion) etc., it's no surprise that you've opened this particular thread.

 

So, basically, if you're a troll, keep it up - you'll get banned sooner or later.

If you're not a troll, please attempt for a change to understand why we hold the positions we do - regardless of our age.

 

And stop whining - life sucks enough as it is to have to listen to someone whining about issues they don't understand.

[nutronjon]

Nutronjon, you've contradicted yourself a few times in your last post.

 

You've held that Democracy is God. You've held that God is supernatural and unknowable. You've held that "God is the Stuff of the Universe", whatever that might mean.

 

You felt inspired to say a lot did you. What have I said that leads to say I said democracy is God, I think you misinterpret something I have said. Democracy is of humans and can only be human. If I wrote God is supernature, it was one of the irritating times when I forgot to use the "not". I hate when I do that.

 

God is the stuff of the universe, means whatever the universe is made of, we can think of that as God. The Stoics, and later Spinoza, and to some degree the Hindus kind of see things this way, and when Jefferson wrote of "the Laws and Nature and Nature's God" that is what he was saying,I think. Like when I started posting in this forum I thought we were going to talk about all these things, and then I thought I was just being misunderstood and that if I did a better job of explaining myself that would resolve the problem, and then I was called a troll and I don't know what to think now.

 

You've held these rather unconventional views, and held that if only the rest of us will change our definitions of God and agree with yours, then all will be swell.

 

Oh yes, that is true. Once the Greeks accepted the notion that things happen for a reason, they shifted from the notion of many gods to whatever, is this reason for all things. Then they argued with the Christian over who had the right to define God. Since I see so much wrong with the bible, I am not giving the Jews nor Christians the right to define God. Why should I or anyone else, allow someone else the right to define God? What kind of sense does that make?

 

 

Of course the entire world will be a happy place if everybody simply changed their definitions of whatever topic comes to mind, to mine. But I must really be an idiot of stupendous proportions to actually believe that such a scenarion is even possible.

 

Saying God is the stuff of universe, and we should look to nature to understand God, not holy books full of superstitious notions, is not changing the topic. This is the thinking that is behind our democracy, and I am speaking of what was talked about in the beginning of democracy. It is not a new idea I created. This is the history that isn't being taught, since replacing liberal education with education for technology.

 

Nutron, you are currently acting exactly like the troll InfiniteNow told you about in that article he referred to. Do you understand why?

 

What I do understand is we are as a nation are in trouble, because we have lost the meaning of our history, and while some people think our country should be defended with weapons of war, I think it needs to be defended with education. That is more important to me than anything else. If that makes me a troll, then so be it. I think that is a very mean thing to say to someone, and if I didn't care about the future of this country and what will happens to my grandchildren and their children, I would not continue.

 

Do you understand why it's necessary to have a Theology Forum in a Science site, where the sociological implications of anything of a theological nature can be discussed? Do you understand why Science gives absolutely no creedence to the existence of a God for which no evidence exists, and gives absolutely the same amount of credibility to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Allah, etc., but will still discuss the sociological ramifications of the belief in these imaginary entities?

 

No, I absolutely do not understand why such complete intolerance of all possible notions of God would lead to having a theology forum. From what I see, the general understanding of God here is extremely culturally limited and time limited to the present, and prejudiced that very narrow understanding of God, so I have no idea why you would invite people to discuss the subject. This was not the impression of the forum I got when I read the introduction. When I read "reason" in the introduction, I was excited and thought people already understood and accepted the Greek notion of the word/logos/god and reason.

 

Also, it seems to me, you have a rather lacking understanding of philosophy, as your constant incontextual referrals to ancient Athens illustrate. You don't seem to know why ancient philosophy is called ancient philosophy, and not modern philosophy. Heck, for a person (persumably) "over the age of 30", you're pretty limited in your knowledge and understanding of the world. I sincerely suggest you go to the library and read up on the Scientific Method so that you can finally understand why we have a theology forum whilst rejecting the existence of god.

 

:shrug: No, I didn't know philosopy had to be identified as ancient or modern. Libraries are big places, why don't you just tell me why people intolerant of any notion of god, have a theology forum and insist it is not a theology forum, but a science forum. This is almost like labeling a glass poison "water" because the forum is not as it is labeled and explained.

 

Also, read up a bit on your own Constitution, where the Founding Fathers have soundly kicked God out of the hallowed halls of government. The current Godliness of the American government is a 20th century issue - the original intent of your constitution was exactly the opposite. You've referred to this particular issue in one of your prior posts. Also, go and read up on Democracy, and what it is. Democracy is not God, and has nothing to do with God. God is not Nature - you've said God is Nature, and then in the very next line God is unknowable. That's a direct contradiction. Nature is inherently knowable and testable - anything else is "Super"natural, or in plain English, "Beyond Nature".

 

I refered to the Declaration of Independence and the wording "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God". What is your objection to that? I have shelves full of books on democracy and I am enjoying a new one called "Foudning Faith" by Steven Waldman. You should be able to get it from your library, or perhaps your library will order it. After you read it, come back with your argument. Correct, democracy is not God, but it is based on a concept of God that has everything to do with the concept of government by consensus of the people:

 

"In Western political philosophy, the principles of constitional government often have been based on a belief in a higher law-a body of universal principles of right and justice that is superior to detailed, everyday law." This notion is important to our understanding of freedom of speech and the prevention of tyranny. The moderators have the control over these forums, but above us all is a higher law. In this context that means, forbidding freedom of speech here is the seed for other steps to forbidding freedom of speech. Acts of tyranny here are the seeds for justifying other acts of tyranny. What we sow is what we reap. Not that a god makes this so, but we there is a cause and effect to everything. Trolls are no more real than tooth fairies, but if you start labelling people as trolls, you make them real don't you, and you hurt people and cause bad feelings, but perhaps please the clique that approves of this. This is not good for the society at large.

 

Quite frankly, maybe you're the troll INow told you about. Or maybe not. If not, then you've got a severe misunderstanding of the topics under discussion, notable Science, God and Democracy.

 

What do you mean? Explain your thoughts, not what you think of me.

 

 

But regardless which of the two you are, I am now giving you a formal warning to basically "stop your whining", and to read for a change what others have to say - and to take heed of what they say. If you don't want to read up on any of these topics, at least go and read "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Because with your intolerant religious views (everyone must believe as you do), incomprehensible philosophical views (God is Democracy), ageism views (you don't have to care about anybody below 30's opinion) etc., it's no surprise that you've opened this particular thread.

 

Whoops- stop whinning? If you do not want me to continue saying what I am saying, stop the discussion by not responding. It is as simple as that. Most of my threads die because no one responds to them. Moontanman argued religious folks would take over the discussions if they were not stopped. That is silly nonsense. When arguments people don't like are ignored, the argument is lost in the back pages. You all are engaging in what I say that you don't like, and that is what keeps the discussion going. I began speaking of god, because you all were ignoring what I said, when I didn't speak of god. Saying my response to you is whinning, is insulting, as calling me a troll is insulting, and there is a rule against insulting people that is being ignored, and this is just a matter of fact. Insulting people gets what result? Is this what you want for the forums?

[jackson33]

nutron;

 

Democracy is NOT a state of mind; What are a natural human traits, to think-reason/act/react/voice/protect and the rest, are what separates humans from other spieces...none of which requires government. Once again, some governing forces attempt to restrict these natural traits, which in a democracy is more likely.

 

I understand your connection to indoctrination and education, but (and again) this is and has been a matter for States to deal with, so long as other laws and rights are not breached. What is taught, by whom, where are in your school district and is a result of people that live in the district. If you or any parent feels any restriction or teaching is undesirable, there are many alternative choices. (Government schools, private, religious and home schooling the obvious) Additionally parents can by law, change, alter, modify, curriculum or practices in public schools. The difference in a Wyoming School and those in NYC are as different as night and day.

 

Nature/God/Democracy/Constitution; No one has denied the founders were from various philosophical background or that religion played a role in how or why the country formed, but frankly I think most every person involved believed in some GOD none of which involved the 'stuff in the universe'.

Religion is probably the least of any societies idea of a democracy. Most infer one god (today) and certain principles which all members should follow and many declare some kind of punishment for not following their rules. I am sure your aware modern religion developed from multi god understanding and worship was to nature..Rain Gods, Volcano Gods or what ever the local threats came from. Actually though, I think your simply agnostic or have no idea what religion is or should be, but cannot accept modern concepts, text etc. This I would personally agree with...

 

I suggested Buffy because she is a she...Your dealing mostly with guys here and sometimes a womans opinion is more acceptable, especially if your a lady.

Aside from that you have heard from most the other moderators and she is an administrator.

[Nitack]

Well also because I knew ahead of time that she was behind the programs, and was actually interisted in what was taking place within the community partnerships. You did leave out lobbying in you're list of way's to influence government, why ? seems strange that you left that out considering you are one, and as you well know anyone can do this. What do you lobby for?

 

I was quoting Nutron and the ways she listed that she thinks she can influence government. What you need to understand though, is that in the end, lobbying is just a very toned down threat of lost votes.

What I say: I represent 60,000 members who care very much about this bill for these reasons.

What it means: I represent 60,000 people who might not vote for you/your party if you don't seriously consider our point of view.

 

After all, what reason does a legislator or her/his staff have to listen to me as a lobbyist? Am I more informed? Possibly (likely). Why would any legislator or their staff give what I have to say more credence than the phone call from a random constituent?

 

Lobbyists do not just represent a particular opinion, they also represent constituents and/or votes. When the largest employer in a given legislators district asks for a meeting they get it. When that employer expresses his concern over a particular bill and how it will impact their industry the legislator gives it serious attention. Why? Because if that legislator casts a vote that hurts the industry those jobs may disappear. History has shown us that the quickest way for a politician to lose their job is to have a spike in unemployment in their district.

 

My point is this. You as a citizen can lobby on behalf of any cause you care about. Your legislator is constitutionally obligated to listen to your concerns. However, you need to remember that you are one voice. Any given individual lobbyist may be representing the voice of ten, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, or even millions of voices. A million voices can make any legislator pay attention (I know the AARP lobbying team, legislators pay attention when they speak). Lobbying is an important tool used to influence government, but it is only important because those lobbyists represent either VOTES, or the potential to cost the legislator VOTES.

 

For obvious reasons I will not be posting who I lobby for. But it is part of the grand debacle we call health care. If you did any reading in the last few months about H.R. 6331 (very big medicare bill), I put in quite a lot of hours because of that bill.

[Nitack]

...

 

I have taken away the content of the post in the interest of space and so as not to be accused of highlighting/picking on anyone. But...

 

Bravo Boerseun :shrug: ;)

 

You put truth to word in a wonderfully crafted way. You called BS when it was starting to smell to high atmosphere . I could not have expressed it better myself.

[CraigD]

I had to ask myself, why someone would deliberately go out of his way to say something that he had to know would be very hurtful...

This statement involves, I think, the very commonplace but very dysfunctional psychological phenomenon of projection. Nutronjon reaching a concusion, based presumably on her having considered what her motivation and emotional state would have been had she made the post, about the internal motivation and emotional state of another person, Nitack. Her conclusion is that the purpose of his post was to emotionally hurt her.

 

Based on having considered what my motivation and emotions would have been had I made the post, I reached the conclusion that Nitack felt strongly that the post of nutronjon’s to which he was responding was seriously flawed, and felt obliged to correct it.

 

The mechanism underlying projection is an important component of the human psyche. Because we communicate, especially in textual formats such as a message board, with much less information than is necessary for a reader to reach high-confidence conclusion about our internal states and emotions, one must use ones ability to model another’s psyche using ones own as an example. However, it’s important to recognize the limited, low-confidence nature of these “other models”, and not treat the conclusions we reach with as we would high-confidence conclusions.

 

As a general rule, at hypography and other forums that favor objective interpretations of all things, it’s best IMHO to focus as much as possible on what is actually contained in a post, rather than attempting to discern from it what is intended or emotionally felt by the poster. If a person responds to a post of yours by saying it is wrong and giving reasons for their conclusion, first consider their criticism and reasons. If they are compelling, accept them, and thank the person for correcting your error. If, after calm and careful consideration, you find their criticism in error, reply with the reasons you find it so.

 

The scientific method can become applicable in such an exchange, as when a I think-you think impasse reached, you can agree on an objective test to decide an issue, then carry it out. Because such tests and their results have often already been performed, it’s often necessary only to find and provide links and references to these results. This is the fundamental reason why the first rule of hypography is:

In general,

back up your claims

by using links or references.

Even in forums dedicated to disciplines not traditionally considered scientific, hypography encourages the used of this scientific method. This approach is really, I think, the key to what the whole site, and more widely, scientific culture, is about.

[nutronjon]

nutron;

 

Democracy is NOT a state of mind; What are a natural human traits, to think-reason/act/react/voice/protect and the rest, are what separates humans from other spieces...none of which requires government. Once again, some governing forces attempt to restrict these natural traits, which in a democracy is more likely.

 

I understand your connection to indoctrination and education, but (and again) this is and has been a matter for States to deal with, so long as other laws and rights are not breached. What is taught, by whom, where are in your school district and is a result of people that live in the district. If you or any parent feels any restriction or teaching is undesirable, there are many alternative choices. (Government schools, private, religious and home schooling the obvious) Additionally parents can by law, change, alter, modify, curriculum or practices in public schools. The difference in a Wyoming School and those in NYC are as different as night and day.

 

Nature/God/Democracy/Constitution; No one has denied the founders were from various philosophical background or that religion played a role in how or why the country formed, but frankly I think most every person involved believed in some GOD none of which involved the 'stuff in the universe'.

Religion is probably the least of any societies idea of a democracy. Most infer one god (today) and certain principles which all members should follow and many declare some kind of punishment for not following their rules. I am sure your aware modern religion developed from multi god understanding and worship was to nature..Rain Gods, Volcano Gods or what ever the local threats came from. Actually though, I think your simply agnostic or have no idea what religion is or should be, but cannot accept modern concepts, text etc. This I would personally agree with...

 

I suggested Buffy because she is a she...Your dealing mostly with guys here and sometimes a womans opinion is more acceptable, especially if your a lady.

Aside from that you have heard from most the other moderators and she is an administrator.

 

Well I guess it is a good thing we are speaking of democracy, however, I do not want to participate in another hostile argument, so I don't know how to handle this, because democracy is very much a state of mind. It you google, "Democracy is a state of mind" you find many links. I chose one that I think best addresses your comments, because it makes an issue of the importance of the people in a democracy. The article begins with an explanation of how during the cold war, the US was supporting strong military leaders in both Africa and South America, and how despite the trappings of democracy, these countries did not have democracy. Then the cold war ended and power returned to the people....

 

Not so, Mr. White. From the early 1990s, with the end of the Cold War and therefore the need for Eastern and Western `spheres of influence', Africa was finally able to embark on the road of true democracy without having regimes imposed on them.

 

The pressure did not come from Western governments; it came from the people, the religious institutions, political parties and a new breed of leadership that owed its power to the people rather than foreign interests.

 

Coups `did not go out of fashion'; they were simply not tolerated. Without a `big brother' to back them, military leaders decided the best place for them to be was in the barracks.

 

We have always known that elections do not a democracy make. Democracy is a state of mind - implementing its physical counterpart was beset with hurdles laid by others. Many of those hurdles have now removed themselves. The result, the democratisation of Africa, has advanced 300% in only 20 years. Which other continent can claim the same success for itself?

 

Copyright International Communications May 2003

Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

 

Democracy is a state of mind | African Business | Find Articles at BNET

 

Does your insistance of local control of public education include knowledge of the No, Child Left Behind Act and other federal government mandates, and knowledge of the 1958 National Defense Education Act of which I speak often?

 

Please, read about Cicero and God and understand he was one of the most read person's in the day of our forefathers, and paraphase what Cicero said of God, and then make your argument with this information. Knowledge of the Stoics would also be helpful to this discussion, and knoweldge of Spinoza's concept of God would help alot.

[freeztar]

paraphase what Cicero said of God, and then make your argument with this information.

 

Everyone here is free to make their argument with whatever information they choose, within the constraints of the rules of course.

[nutronjon]

This statement involves, I think, the very commonplace but very dysfunctional psychological phenomenon of projection. Nutronjon reaching a concusion, based presumably on her having considered what her motivation and emotional state would have been had she made the post, about the internal motivation and emotional state of another person, Nitack. Her conclusion is that the purpose of his post was to emotionally hurt her.

 

Based on having considered what my motivation and emotions would have been had I made the post, I reached the conclusion that Nitack felt strongly that the post of nutronjon’s to which he was responding was seriously flawed, and felt obliged to correct it.

 

The mechanism underlying projection is an important component of the human psyche. Because we communicate, especially in textual formats such as a message board, with much less information than is necessary for a reader to reach high-confidence conclusion about our internal states and emotions, one must use ones ability to model another’s psyche using ones own as an example. However, it’s important to recognize the limited, low-confidence nature of these “other models”, and not treat the conclusions we reach with as we would high-confidence conclusions.

 

As a general rule, at hypography and other forums that favor objective interpretations of all things, it’s best IMHO to focus as much as possible on what is actually contained in a post, rather than attempting to discern from it what is intended or emotionally felt by the poster. If a person responds to a post of yours by saying it is wrong and giving reasons for their conclusion, first consider their criticism and reasons. If they are compelling, accept them, and thank the person for correcting your error. If, after calm and careful consideration, you find their criticism in error, reply with the reasons you find it so.

 

The scientific method can become applicable in such an exchange, as when a I think-you think impasse reached, you can agree on an objective test to decide an issue, then carry it out. Because such tests and their results have often already been performed, it’s often necessary only to find and provide links and references to these results. This is the fundamental reason why the first rule of hypography is:

In general,

back up your claims

by using links or references.

Even in forums dedicated to disciplines not traditionally considered scientific, hypography encourages the used of this scientific method. This approach is really, I think, the key to what the whole site, and more widely, scientific culture, is about.

 

I would love to objectively analyze what Nitack said in response to what I said, and may be it would be a good thing to continuing taking this thread off subject? But I honestly did start this thread because I was delighted with the realization that there is a social purpose behind insulting people and that is clique behavior.

 

Criag, maybe it is just because my memory is poor, but I don't remember you beginning arguments by insulting people. There is a difference between saying mean things to someone, and disagreeing with a point someone made.

You practice good manners, because this appears to be your way of making a good impression people. Nitack and InfiniteNow are insulting, because this appears to their way of impressing people.

 

I am delighted to engage in a exchange of ideas, when the exchange is civil. I don't like doing so when the exchange is not civil. And I think if we look at what I said that set of Nitack's insults, the charge of me being a hypocrite will prove to be unjustified name calling.

 

The focus of what I said was about all the other things we can do to be politically active, besides voting. I didn't say I don't vote, except when I do not feel comfortable about what I know. Many years ago, Oregonians had to vote to close a nuclear plant or keep it open, I just didn't think I knew enough to make that decision, so I didn't vote on the issue. I think all the people who vote, despite being poorly informed, are being irresponible. On the other hand, digging for information and then mobilizing people to act on the information, can be every time consuming and exhausting.

 

Should we look at exactly what I said, and see if the insults are justified, or are they Nitack and InfiniteNow being good buddies at my expense? More important, is this happening at higher levels? Are some political and corporate leaders engaged in this type of behavior? How about the military leaders the US supported during the cold war? Were they democratic leaders or self serving and harmful to their countries? This is a human nature question, not just a personal displeasure.

[nutronjon]

Everyone here is free to make their argument with whatever information they choose, within the constraints of the rules of course.

 

Okay, let's try this-

 

There is no such as atomic particles and anyone who says they exist is a nut job.

 

Is this a good argument? What makes it a good or a bad argument?

[freeztar]

Okay, let's try this-

 

There is no such as atomic particles and anyone who says they exist is a nut job.

 

Is this a good argument? What makes it a good or a bad argument?

 

Please provide proof that atomic particles do not exist.