View Thread

Atheists Today » Easy Reading » The Rant Room
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Liberals lost their reason to be.
Max
derF wrote:
derF wrote:
Max wrote:
derF wrote:
Max, no hard feelings about any previous postings we all do and say things that probably should have been left dormant. You yourself seem to not take notice of the fact that you enjoy speaking for other people. But it's more amusing than annoying.


I don't recall doing that. Feel free to point out where I did.


Max, look at any culture in the world. The women of India adorn and go to extremes with makeup to make themselves attractive. They like to look attractive. All women do. It is in their nature. Apply the same sentence to women in China, Japan, Korea, Scandinavia, South America, all of Europe and some African women go to even more extremes in an effort to make themselves look beautiful. In fact show me any other place on Earth where women are forced to keep them selves covered from head to foot. If it was so great and desirable why isn't it prevalent all over the world? Beauty is one of the few physical advantages women have with which to manipulate and attract men and mates. Now, you are going to speak for the thousands upon thousands of Muslim women who are forbidden to show even the tiniest bit of themselves without putting themselves in danger. Some are even forced to conceal their eyes behind a gauze or film that has to limit their vision. And then you are going to speak for them and tell us that they like and want to wear these cumbersome garments. But then all of a sudden you can't recall ever speaking for them and telling us how much they enjoy wearing them. I apologize for using the term ultra liberal. In your case the proper term might be ultra conservative. I sure hope for her sake that you are not married.

Are you even reading my posts? By the way, I wouldn't look back into Chinese history for examples of women wearing liberal clothing, foot binding ring a bell? That was a far more brutal practice than the burka. If you can't find constant examples of women being bundled up in uncomfortable clothing during many cultures in history, you're an incredibly poor student of history. For the THIRD time, I don't condone women being forced to wear burkas. I condone women in the Western world who wear burkas because they choose to, of which there are many, go to any college campus, to continue wearing them. What's your plan Derf? Are you going to outlaw the burka in your neighborhood? If you had taken the time to read my multiple posts in this topic, you would have realized that the point you are insisting I am making, I am in fact, not making. Your objection than is not with women being forced to wear something, it's because you think women are too pretty to be covered up, and that women want to naturally flaunt themselves? It's in their nature? Pretty amazing you accuse me of speaking for people when you are making pretty sweeping comments there about an entire gender. I know many MANY women who hate makeup, and hate to dress up. If you're trying to be a standard bearer for feminism, you're failing miserably. The burden of proof is on you here, buddy. My argument is that there are some women who choose to wear a burka, as I've said I've actually met some, while living in a western country. If your argument is that no woman would freely choose to wear a burka, than by all means prove me wrong. I await the evidence. Just try not to link me to another frothing-at-the-mouth British atheist.

P.S: "I sure hope for her sake that you are not married." Nice comment there pal, very mature. I abuse women now do I? What's next, gonna call my mother a whore? I've been very civil with you so far, and only called you out on your choice of words. You however, have attacked my character, and gone so far as to wish I am not married for the safety of a wife that doesn't exist. Stay classy there, Derf.
 
derF
My, my, my. It appears I have been outdone. Outclassed. Out pointed. You are absolutely correct. There are many women out there who could care less how they appear in public. They have literally given up the chase. Did they choose to of did they just decide the effort wasn't worth the results. Binding of Chinese womens feet was cruel and painful. But it is not practiced anymore. Although I would point out that women indulged in it because they thought that it made their men think they were prettier, more petite. I know lots of people who like to wear hardly anything and prefer to adorn themselves with tattoo's and I have no problem with that. We all know there are plenty of folks out on the extremes who do things that we wouldn't unanimously refer to as normal.

You tell me you know hundreds of women out there who prefer to move through life in complete anonymity shrouded from head to foot! That's fine as long as they keep it private and in their own homes or homelands.

But I do not want to live in a country where I am forced to to business with a person whom I cannot Identify and who proves nothing by producing a drivers license as proof of who they are but will not allow their actual faces to be seen because their religion prohibits it. If that is the case they must go back to their homeland where no one seems to care who anyone is and protect their anonymity there. It does not work in this country and is completely unacceptable. When our women go to their countries they are expected to wear proper head covering and adhere to the culture of the place they are visiting. And those people must adhere to our standards when they are visiting or living in our culture. I will not play a double standard with any culture that expects me to bend to their cultural wills while in their lands and yet they feel it isn't necessary to reciprocate.

And once again you have tried to supply me with a dialogue that you feel adapts itself well to my personality. You gonna try that old tired beat up conservative ploy of spreading the rumor that I called your mother a whore just to strengthen your argument? Perhaps a wife would be a good thing for you. You seem to have a certain disconnect when it comes to the female psyche.
Edited by derF on 10/23/2009 00:31
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
Max
derF wrote:
My, my, my. It appears I have been outdone. Outclassed. Out pointed. You are absolutely correct. There are many women out there who could care less how they appear in public. They have literally given up the chase. Did they choose to of did they just decide the effort wasn't worth the results. Binding of Chinese womens feet was cruel and painful. But it is not practiced anymore. Although I would point out that women indulged in it because they thought that it made their men think they were prettier, more petite. I know lots of people who like to wear hardly anything and prefer to adorn themselves with tattoo's and I have no problem with that. We all know there are plenty of folks out on the extremes who do things that we wouldn't unanimously refer to as normal.

You tell me you know hundreds of women out there who prefer to move through life in complete anonymity shrouded from head to foot! That's fine as long as they keep it private and in their own homes or homelands.

But I do not want to live in a country where I am forced to to business with a person whom I cannot Identify and who proves nothing by producing a drivers license as proof of who they are but will not allow their actual faces to be seen because their religion prohibits it. If that is the case they must go back to their homeland where no one seems to care who anyone is and protect their anonymity there. It does not work in this country and is completely unacceptable. When our women go to their countries they are expected to wear proper head covering and adhere to the culture of the place they are visiting. And those people must adhere to our standards when they are visiting or living in our culture. I will not play a double standard with any culture that expects me to bend to their cultural wills while in their lands and yet they feel it isn't necessary to reciprocate.

And once again you have tried to supply me with a dialogue that you feel adapts itself well to my personality. You gonna try that old tired beat up conservative ploy of spreading the rumor that I called your mother a whore just to strengthen your argument? Perhaps a wife would be a good thing for you. You seem to have a certain disconnect when it comes to the female psyche.


Yes, there are. I have many female friends, family members, who do not care how other people think they look. They don't dress up or use make up: period. And your mocking attitude toward the possibility of their existence is extremely chauvinistic. Your smarmy attempts to belittle my argument only make yours look more ridiculous. I don't need to "out point you", you do a fine job of it to yourself. You think that Chinese women bound their feet because they wanted to appeal to men? They were forced to do it as little girls, for the benefit of older men. They had little to no say in the matter. And I'd like to point out that women wearing flashy clothes in the Far East was not widespread. In Japan for example, most women's clothes were extremely humble looking, and it was the men who wore the gaudy clothes and makeup.

You don't want to live in a country where people wear stuff that offends you? News for you buddy: tough luck. People in the free world wear what the hell they want. Your argument, as you put it, is they should go back to their own country if they want to wear burkas? The universe doesn't revolve around what makes you comfortable. If you would outright refuse to even do business or talk to someone wearing a burka, I'm astonished you need so little provocation to treat people with such contempt. What exactly are "our standards"? Yours you mean? I find burkas to be ridiculous, but if a woman chooses to wear one, it's none of my business, nor yours. The most ridiculous thing about what you've said, is that in their own countries, they have standards of what is acceptable to wear, so why shouldn't we? You're comparing Europe and the the United States, to a backwards place like Saudi Arabia by using this argument. We have an enlightened enough society that we don't dictate what people can or can not drape over themselves, while you seem to advocate a burka expulsion. You really want our society to start acting like theirs? If someone dislikes the kimono, a clumsy, uncomfortable garment, should any Japanese person that wears one go back to Japan, as we have standards as to what people should wear? I also find people covered in piercings, tattoos, and leather clothing and chains to look ridiculous, but it's their body and they choose what to put on it, not me. And I certainly will not tell them to leave my surroundings because they don't conform to my own standards of what is appropriate dress.

Finally, I am not surprised you misread the mother is a whore comment. I was making the point that you're dragging this argument down into the mud, because you apparently have nothing else to bolster your own position with. You made a comment in extremely poor taste about feeling sorry for any woman who could be my wife. Should I start attacking your wife, family, or relationships now, big guy? I'm sure that would make me feel like a bigger man, and it would certainly make my argument appear more well thought out or reasonable. The big disconnect with females isn't coming from me here friend, it's you. You appear to treat women as globular species, and not the individuals that they are. I don't deny that there are tons of women who lavish themselves on make up and clothes, or obsess over looks. There are also tons that don't, as I know many of them who would laugh at your characterization of "women." You seem to be slyly insinuating that I have an elitist attitude toward you. I was perfectly civil with you before, and only took objection to your use of the word "Ultra liberal" to people who aren't here to speak for themselves. However if you want to keep throwing out smarmy little insults at me, feel free to continue, but don't be surprised when I treat you how you're acting: like a child. Hopefully you'll have less potshots at me in your next post, but you're not giving me much reason to hope. Again I have no contempt or ill feelings for towards you, just how you insist on acting.

Oh and I'm still waiting on that evidence that proves that no women choose to wear a burka.
Edited by Max on 10/23/2009 06:09
 
comfortable
catman wrote:
...I don't think they always consciously consider it.
.

That's precisely my point. Thx.

In fact most aren't consciously aware of it at all, and that leads to internal strife. e.g. "How dare you treat me like this; after all I've done for you." is a prime example (such a person becoming overwhelmed with a deep anger, resentment, and self-righteousness while totally ignoring their own (unconsciously) selfish motivations when performing whatever it was that they performed for the other person).

Forgive me for carrying on, but I'd like to illustrate why I believe that being intellectually honest about one's own selfish motives is important.

Whenever I experience a negative emotion, I find that examining the basis for that emotion is most useful (and allows me to let go of the negative emotion). Having done this exercise thousands of times brings me to a generalization which I have found useful, and those I have shared it with have told me that they also find it quite useful, in letting go of negative emotions:
1. All anger comes from frustration
2. All frustration comes from unmet expectations
3. I cannot control the behavior of others, but I can re-examine my own expectations.

So when someone does something I consider unfair or 'wrong', I stop and ask myself 'Why did I expect that person to behave otherwise?' and 'What was it I was really expecting and why?' Usually that leads me to be honest with my own motivations and admit that my expectations were my own fault; that I was hoping to gain (something or other) out of the deal, and it didn't work out. That's all; it just didn't work out.

I used to feel that the other person was grossly 'unfair' whenever I felt that they did not 'appreciate' my efforts and sacrifice. At the office, and in the home. I got angry. Then I realized that my expectations of appreciation were actually selfishly motivated. Life's been sweet ever since.

An exercise in expectations:

If I pick up a snake off of the ground and it bites me, would I be angry with the snake? My answer is, it wouldn't make sense to be angry - that's what snakes do. They bite when picked up. It's just the way things are. That's a snake's job. To bite.

Would I be angry with a baby that cries? No. That's a baby's job; to cry when it wants something.

Was I angry with my teenage son who broke a promise to me? You betcha!
Did this happen hundreds of times? Yep.
Do you think that Comfortable developed the habit of anticipating some outrageous behavior from the child beforehand (say...when Comfortable was pulling into the driveway, just before opening the garage door, when coming home from a day's work)?
He sure did.
Did Comfortable ever get angry with the teenager again? Nope. He 'expected' the behavior and therefore was no longer frustrated.
Was Comfortable then able to modify the child's behavior in an effective and constructive way? Yep. With the anger out of the way, he could then communicate effectively without the child's defensive reaction to the anger.

I've now carried this idea of examining my own motives and expectations into the world and find it liberating. Life is much easier now.

Nowadays I like to imagine a burglar in my bedroom at 3:00 AM looking surprised when I, very calmly, put a .38 slug between his eyes and think to myself, "The poor schmuck. He sure made a bad career choice." No anger (after all, breaking into homes is just what burglars do, it's their job.)

When politicians lie - that's their job.
When rednecks rant about illegal aliens - that's their job.
When Glenn Beck bloviates - that's his job.
What do I really want from them, and why?

JohnH wrote:
.... what I perceived to be a negative notion about human behavior. Rereading I still find your perception a little too negative for my taste if essentially realistic.


You really write well. You are very careful about what you say; the word 'diplomatic' comes to mind. It's a pleasure to read your posts.

'Negative' notion? I don't see it that way (although I understand your feelings - I think we are both 'humanists' who see people as basically good).

I think of my attitude as realistic. We are all selfish, but can choose to be so in constructive, sustainable ways; or short-sighted ways. I call my preferred attitude "enlightened self-interest". As I pointed out earlier, I can feed my ego by making others feel good. I'm still being selfish; my ego castle is being built - but most people at my office want me to continue being selfish in this particular way because it makes them feel good (which means that they are also selfish in that they want someone else to make them feel good). It's still win-win - even though both parties are being selfish.

Does that make sense?
.
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
.
Men are sheep in credulity, but wolves for conformity.
 
seeker
Whew, a quick read of this thread reminded me thoroughly of what made me decide I needed a hiatus from this site. I still find it incredible that anyone could find such judgmental speech defensible.

Even leaving aside the fact that many of the harsh statements in the video are evaluations of extremes being applied to general groups there are just so many issues with the reasoning being put forth.

Are all voluntary burka wearers subtly making a comment about western society? Condit seems to think so.

Are all Muslims extremists who condemn western society? One again Condit seems to think so.

Are all of Condit's critics ultra-liberals? Probably not.

I'm as against religion as anyone but even I wouldn't try to categorize every Christian by the actions of Christian Identity members and I certainly wouldn't try to label communists by the actions of Stalin. Disliking a religious system is not the same as disliking the people trapped in that religion.

That's really where Condit's statements become indefensible. Some but not all Muslims are extremists. When we spend so much time labeling them all we force the very polarization that we fear. This a cycle of violence, of hatred and fear being fed back and forth between groups that ultimately destroys both groups.

Essentially you allow their extremists to turn you into extremists when you buy into this garbage. Once you become extremist yourself you will have already given up the principals and freedoms you wanted to defend.
 
catman
comfortable: The problem I have in agreeing with you completely is that I don't regard a comparison between a snake's behavior and a teenager's behavior as valid. The snake doesn't have a choice; it is all ROM, so to speak, and is programmed to behave the way it does. A human of sufficient age, though, has a choice in its actions. Sometimes anger is justified and merited. I regard either anger at the drop of a hat or never being angry as extremes, to be avoided.

seeker: If I were in Condell's place, watching the UK society being submerged in Muslim immigrants with its government supinely giving them everything they want, I'd probably be angry too. Some of what he says is phrased for entertainment value, in my opinion (and he is entertaining!). I'd like for there to be more heard from the 'moderate' Muslims, of which I'm sure there are a considerable number. Whether they are silent or whether what they say simply isn't reported is another question. It suits the governments of the world to paint everything in whitest white and blackest black.
Edited by catman on 10/24/2009 15:10
 
derF
MAX WROTE: Oh and I'm still waiting on that evidence that proves that no women choose to wear a burka.


http://network.na...burka.aspx

http://virginiaha...-2009.html

http://www2.macle...bye-burka/

Max you can really try to ask for things that are a little more feasible. Asking me for proof that women don't like to wear burkas is ludicrous. There are probably women who can't wait to don their burkas and go out to enjoy the day. But they may do it because they are forced to do so by parents or spouse or religion. It is a point that is not provable but can only be weighted by opinion. I've supplied a few links above about some women's views on the burka. As you can see, the opinions vary. I personally could give a fat rats ass if every female in the country decided that the burka was the new fashion statement and must wear garment of the year.

But if they come in to apply for a driver's license or need a clearance to work in a particular job or want to join the military or want to take out a loan or need to be a witness in a court of law or any other number of situations the burka has to go. Anonymity can only go so far. Acceptance of burkas opens the door for concealment of weapons, explosives and identities of those who choose to wear them for, shall we call them, unreligious reasons.

And as far as your attempts at claiming the moral high ground because of your social superiority and knowledge of human nature? Please, take it with my approval. The results of a rebuttal would only agitate an already over agitated conversation.

My final word on the topic is that no one should be forced to do anything (legal) that they don't want to. And it is even worse when they are pretending to enjoy doing it in order to please their masters or religion.
Edited by derF on 10/25/2009 00:42
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
Max
derF wrote:
MAX WROTE: Oh and I'm still waiting on that evidence that proves that no women choose to wear a burka.


http://network.na...burka.aspx

http://virginiaha...-2009.html

http://www2.macle...bye-burka/

Max you can really try to ask for things that are a little more feasible. Asking me for proof that women don't like to wear burkas is ludicrous. There are probably women who can't wait to don their burkas and go out to enjoy the day. But they may do it because they are forced to do so by parents or spouse or religion. It is a point that is not provable but can only be weighted by opinion. I've supplied a few links above about some women's views on the burka. As you can see, the opinions vary. I personally could give a fat rats ass if every female in the country decided that the burka was the new fashion statement and must wear garment of the year.

But if they come in to apply for a driver's license or need a clearance to work in a particular job or want to join the military or want to take out a loan or need to be a witness in a court of law or any other number of situations the burka has to go. Anonymity can only go so far. Acceptance of burkas opens the door for concealment of weapons, explosives and identities of those who choose to wear them for, shall we call them, unreligious reasons.

And as far as your attempts at claiming the moral high ground because of your social superiority and knowledge of human nature? Please, take it with my approval. The results of a rebuttal would only agitate an already over agitated conversation.

My final word on the topic is that no one should be forced to do anything (legal) that they don't want to. And it is even worse when they are pretending to enjoy doing it in order to please their masters or religion.


I can't say I even understand what your objection to my stance is. I never defended women wearing burkas in driver's license photos. I simply defended their right to wear them in public if they chose to, which your earlier posts stated no women would do of her own will. If your stance is simply that you don't like burkas, but don't care if someone really wants to wear one when it's feasible, I have absolutely no objection to your point. You seem to have considerably altered your stance from what it was in the beginning of this topic, or you seriously misinterpreted what mine was.

I am not sure how burkas open the way to concealed weapons any more than baggy clothes or trench coats, so I am afraid I don't see the point of that argument. I agreed with the links you provided up until they advocated banning the burka. Let me emphasize this here, I don't like the burka. But any sane person knows that banning an article of clothing is a laughable solution, and will cause extremists to further separate themselves from the rest of society, which is the opposite of what we want. If we start regulating what they wear, they will see this as an attack and it will only lend more fuel to Muslim extremists. I said earlier, I have no doubt that given time, the burka will become extinct, as did the corset and chastity belt from western society. We however can not force that change, it has to come from within the community of Muslim women, not from without. Dragging government laws banning the thing is not going to help either side, just inflame the argument and make it even uglier than it already is. And keep in mind, I am talking about the burka in Western society, not in some countries where it is enforced, which I find revolting.

I never tried to be a moral crusader in this topic. You took the low road when you proceeded to make insulting comments about me abusing a woman I am not married to, and then insinuated that I was ignorant about women. If you want to complain about me taking a moral high ground, than first examine why you chose to drag your argument into the dirt by making such childish remarks. You're playing the victim now, trying to paint me as a bully who wouldn't leave you alone. I was quite civil with you, and only got rankled when you chose to insult my character instead of defending your own position. Again, complain about me acting elitist as much as you wish, but I wasn't the one dragged this into the mud.
Edited by Max on 10/25/2009 01:36
 
Cynic
I would hate to be in a position to have to decide anything about the burka subject. I hestitate to even have an opinion on it, and really, I'm not sure I have one that I'd be willing to defend to much of an extent.

That said, I think the bottom line is that in situations where what people is only their business, a law cannot be sufficiently justified to prevent it. Anonymity might make things difficult for various agencies on a day to day basis, but that's their problem, so long as no one is treated unequally. So no, I don't think people should be allowed to wear a burka for their driver's license photo, or a police lineup, etc. If I have to do it, so do you -- period. But there are no laws that require me to show my face under other circumstances and making a special one for burkas is no less discriminatory against muslim women than allowing them to wear it for a photo ID would be preferential.

As much as I sympathize with notions of erecting laws against them as a way of protecting women from overbearing men who have been controlled since birth, in the end I can't agree that it's anymore justifiable than banning high healed shoes for the same reason. That's not to make light of it, but to illustrate that it can be difficult to draw the line between declaring something stupid and thus inappropriate and declaring something stupid and thus illegal. It's unstatisfying, but it's better to try to convince people to make better choices than to take those choices away.
 
JohnH
I abhor the burqa. I abhor the habit. I abhor vestments. I abhor yarmulke and ringlets. I abhor the fancy (and expensive) dress of televangelists.

I personally tend toward jeans and work shirts. An outfit that does not at all indicate my real circumstances in life.

It is not a question of what you believe someone "should" wear but what should be illegal.

Edited to say that Cynic beat me to the punch.
Edited by JohnH on 10/25/2009 02:25
 
seeker
catman wrote:
seeker: If I were in Condell's place, watching the UK society being submerged in Muslim immigrants with its government supinely giving them everything they want, I'd probably be angry too. Some of what he says is phrased for entertainment value, in my opinion (and he is entertaining!). I'd like for there to be more heard from the 'moderate' Muslims, of which I'm sure there are a considerable number. Whether they are silent or whether what they say simply isn't reported is another question. It suits the governments of the world to paint everything in whitest white and blackest black.


The problem is that Condell's rant is phrased more for shock value than for truth. Its one thing to be angry but lashing out in retaliation is the wring response as well. The few legitimate complaints Condell has end up washed away in the overall reactionary tone of his rant and that is the problem.

I does no one any good to just shotgun blast complaints. You end up hitting all manner of unintended targets and doing more damage to your own credibility. Lost somewhere in the over the top rant about ultra-liberals erc may have been some reference to a legitimate concern over public policy towards Muslim extremists but the use of such a broad brush only serves to confuse the real issues rather than address them.
 
comfortable
catman wrote:
comfortable: The problem I have in agreeing with you completely is that I don't regard a comparison between a snake's behavior and a teenager's behavior as valid. The snake doesn't have a choice; it is all ROM, so to speak, and is programmed to behave the way it does. A human of sufficient age, though, has a choice in its actions. Sometimes anger is justified and merited. I regard either anger at the drop of a hat or never being angry as extremes, to be avoided.
....

catman: I understand your point of view completely. I felt the same, and felt it very strongly, when in my 20's. Now I'm a strict neo-Darwinist. Now I agree with whoever it was who told me in my 20's that we don't really have much choice at all. That statement made me angry. Now I am in total agreement.
Mark Twain agreed too. He pointed out that wherever we are in life only depends on two factors:
- situation
- temperament
When each of us is faced with a situation where a choice is called for, our temperament (character) determines which choice we make; and having made choice A instead of B, places us on a different 'path' from that point on. If you and I are both faced with a choice, and I choose A while you choose B, then tomorrow you will have a different set of new choices than I will, because of our difference in choices today. We will have put ourselves into different 'situations' in which you and I will again make choices due to our temperaments. We will diverge ever-further from each other as we follow our paths through life.

So when I see a 'homeless' guy (he might be scamming, I dunno) holding up a cardboard sign, begging for donations at a traffic light, I used to be disgusted with him. If I can get a job, why can't he get a job?

I no longer feel that way. Now I understand that something's different in his ROM (as you say). His nervous system is wired so that he thinks it's okay to do such a horrible, self-degrading thing - while I am sure I'd apply for a job as a broom pusher in a convenience store rather than beg on the street.

Two interesting things follow from my view of our consciousness being a collection of stupid mindless algorithms running inside a computer we call our brain (read Marvin Minsky - a book I could not read at the age of 30 because I hated the idea so much):
1. the very wiring itself can be modified by experiences (e.g. a normal infant with totally blindfolded eyes will never be able to see, even after removing the blindfold. The nerve pathways from retina to brain will never develop. e.g. a child growing up in a war zone with daily deaths all around will never be able to experience the world the same as a child growing up protected - even if they move to the same household)
2. When a person is born with a defective leg, everyone can see it and make allowances. Not so when a person is born with a 'defective' brain.

So my personality is, indeed, in ROM, just like the snake. I enjoy higher order functions as well, but the emotions are pretty much reptilian....and when it comes to humans making choices, emotions trump everything else.

Nowadays, instead of being frightened at such a prospect, I embrace it as liberating and explanatory of all the irrationality I observe in the world. It lowers my blood pressure.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have standards, or that we should accept behavior that's destructive; I'm merely saying that understanding why, is less corrosive than blaming. The Jeffrey Dahmer's of the world need to be taken away - but we can do it without anger, without hate.

My motto has become "God condemns. Darwin understands".

And how's this for selfishness? I find that since I've been more understanding of others, they love me back. Now there's a feedback loop I can live with.

ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512198QFM2L._SS500_.jpg
Edited by comfortable on 10/25/2009 14:20
.
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
.
Men are sheep in credulity, but wolves for conformity.
 
comfortable
seeker wrote:
I does no one any good to just shotgun blast complaints. You end up hitting all manner of unintended targets and doing more damage to your own credibility. Lost somewhere in the over the top rant about ultra-liberals erc may have been some reference to a legitimate concern over public policy towards Muslim extremists but the use of such a broad brush only serves to confuse the real issues rather than address them.

Eloquently put, Seeker.
Exactly my thoughts (see my above post re: Condell's rant) - but I could not find the words.
I couldn't figure out what his message was due to the high levels of vitriol and labeling.
'shotgun', 'hitting.....unintended targets', 'confuse the real issues'.
Bravo
.
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
.
Men are sheep in credulity, but wolves for conformity.
 
catman
comfortable: What you are stating reminds me of B.F.Skinner and the Behaviorists back when I was at NTSU (now U of NT). There were raging arguments concerning whether or not 'free will' existed. I recall a long discussion of that on the old site, so I woon't get into it too much except to say that I think we do have it, but it is severely restricted by our conditioning/experiences.

Having been a teenager in the distant past, I remember the concept of getting away with all that I could get away with!

I agree with the majority of your post, but there is still an overlay of RAM to go along with the ROM, even in a teenager. A snake is almost entirely ROM.
 
comfortable
catman wrote:
there is still an overlay of RAM to go along with the ROM, even in a teenager. A snake is almost entirely ROM.

Absolutely. Yes.

Skinner?
I visit the casinos at least twice a week. Rows upon rows of 'Skinner boxes' with middle-aged pigeons in front of every one. Putting in their tens and twenties, cooing and stroking the glass video displays, all hoping for some 'pellets' to come out of the slot, all convinced that their cooing (and praying and making the sign of the holy cross) will influence that cold hard machine. It never does, but that won't stop them.

Three categories of boxes
- pellet every press of the lever
- pellet every 10th press of the lever
- pellets at random, not connected to the lever at all

Three pigeons for three days.

Now turn off the pellets to all three boxes. No pellets.

The first pigeon stops trying after 30 mins
The second stops after 5 hours
The third pigeon kept trying until they took it out of the box to prevent starvation.

All too familiar if one visits a casino and pays attention.
What a hoot !!

I play poker, Texas Hold'em, No Limit, $1-$2 and I average $240 per visit. How? Because I bet according to odds and according to how the other players at the table show their confidence or lack of confidence, which allows me to regularly take money away from those who bet because they 'feel lucky'.

;-)

Skinner was spot-on for my money (literally).
Still, we defy our genetic imperative every time we use a contraceptive. My sexual response, which was 'designed' to allow my genes to replicate themselves, seems to work very well when faced with a pattern of colored dots on glossy paper which happen to visually resemble an inviting member of my opposite sex. Evolution doesn't plan anything, so it certainly couldn't plan for the printing press or porno on the internets....But it sure as hell drives greed, jealousy, fight-or-flight, king-of-the-hill, anger, compassion, "awwwwwwwwwww, isn't that baby cute", and 'how dare that driver cut me off!" motivations in our daily lives.
.
.
Edited by comfortable on 10/25/2009 15:23
.
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
.
Men are sheep in credulity, but wolves for conformity.
 
catman
comfortable: I agree. I do my best to be aware of those built-in responses and fight them whenever they don't make sense. The one you mentioned currently giving me the most trouble is "how dare that driver cut me off"! And I drive a small car and ride a motorcycle, so tangling with other vehicles on the road is a really bad idea.

Yes, after my initial resistance to Skinner (which nearly everyone has), I came to agree with him in most instances. His logic is irrefutable.

I have never 'felt lucky' when it comes to gambling. So I very seldom do! Here in TX, the only legal gambling is the TX Lottery, which is gambling for the mathematically challenged. The (state) house always wins.
 
comfortable
Gambling?
Who said anything about gambling?
I said I play poker - Texas Hold'em, No Limit poker.
Slot machines, Roulette, the Lottery - all gambling.
What I do is purely a skill.

You get bad cards, you get good cards - that part is chance, no doubt.

What you do with those cards, with those people, with those chips - that's pure wile, skill, and mathematical evaluation.

In No Limit Texas Hold 'em, fully 3/4 of the time (76% after analyzing 5 million hands of poker) - no one ever sees the hand. It remains a mystery. The cards are 'mucked'. I will never learn what cards you had, and you will never learn which cards I had. He who takes the pot is he who had the most confidence. I love it !!

To me, 'gambling' is betting money on games of chance. Now Texas Hold 'em 'Limit' poker is a game of chance. Any card game where the winner is determined by 'the best hand' is a game of chance. I don't play those. That would include, of course, Black Jack and any other forms of 'poker' where everyone must show their cards in order to determine the winner.

I'm just playin' with ya!
I'm not a word-nazi. Most people I meet would consider it gambling.

But seriously, I don't consider my playing cards for money to be gambling (for the reasons stated). I make at least half of my money when I have an absolute crap hand. When good cards give me confidence, that's a good thing; but when I have bad cards, faking confidence works just as well (heh heh)...sometimes even better ! (mwuuuhahahahahahaaaaa).
;-).
Edited by comfortable on 10/25/2009 22:30
.
The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion.
.
Men are sheep in credulity, but wolves for conformity.
 
derF
MAX WROTE" I am not sure how burkas open the way to concealed weapons any more than baggy clothes or trench coats, so I am afraid I don't see the point of that argument.


It is believed that many if not all of Al Qaeda's most wanted criminals slipped across the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan under the veil of Burkas. Hundreds of suicide bombers have made their way into heaviiy populated areas to detonate themselves while concealed by burkas. Burkas are used to conceal unbelievably deadly weapons. AK47's, grenades, even grenade launchers have been found concealed under the ample fabric of burkas. AT least with baggy clothes and trench coats there is the possibility of identifying the culprit before he or she commits the atrocity. The use of a burka prevents anyone from knowing who or what is beneath the concealment. It is an open invitation to criminals of all sorts to operate in complete anonymity. Totally unacceptable in an open society. Written debates are different because the words themselves have to be taken at their literal value. Accent and pace and attempts at sly humor are impossible to detect from a written sentence. I am saying that the use of the burka is fine for anyone who is avoiding direct sunlight or is hoping that a neighbor whom they abhor doesn't recognize them. But when it comes to the point where the use of the burka is used as a means of impeding the identity of anyone I am totally against it. I will not and do not want to associate with anyone who wants to interact with me while totally concealed and who's communication (much of it conveyed by facial expression) is hidden from me. I don't who condones it. It doesn't wash with me. I have no more to say on this topic.
Edited by derF on 10/25/2009 22:56
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
derF
derF wrote:
[quote]MAX WROTE" I am not sure how burkas open the way to concealed weapons any more than baggy clothes or trench coats, so I am afraid I don't see the point of that argument.


It is believed that many if not all of Al Qaeda's most wanted criminals slipped across the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan under the veil of Burkas. Hundreds of suicide bombers have made their way into heaviiy populated areas to detonate themselves while concealed by burkas. Burkas are used to conceal unbelievably deadly weapons. AK47's, grenades, even grenade launchers have been found concealed under the ample fabric of burkas. AT least with baggy clothes and trench coats there is the possibility of identifying the culprit before he or she commits the atrocity. Try cashing a check or paying a traffic fine or opening a bank account while wearing a full head covering motorcycle helmet with dark visor and see how far it gets you. The use of a burka prevents anyone from knowing who or what is beneath the concealment. It is an open invitation to criminals of all sorts to operate in complete anonymity. Totally unacceptable in an open society.

Written debates are different because the words themselves have to be taken at their literal value. Accent and pace and attempts at sly humor are impossible to detect from a written sentence. I am saying that the use of the burka is fine for anyone who is avoiding direct sunlight or is hoping that a neighbor whom they abhor doesn't recognize them. But when it comes to the point where the use of the burka is used as a means of impeding the identity of anyone I am totally against it. I will not and do not want to associate with anyone who wants to interact with me while totally concealed and who's communication (much of it conveyed by facial expression) is hidden from me. I don't condone wearing it. It doesn't wash with me. I have no more to say on this topic.
Edited by derF on 10/25/2009 23:19
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
derF
derF wrote:
derF wrote:
[quote]MAX WROTE" I am not sure how burkas open the way to concealed weapons any more than baggy clothes or trench coats, so I am afraid I don't see the point of that argument.


It is believed that many if not all of Al Qaeda's most wanted criminals slipped across the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan under the veil of Burkas. Hundreds of suicide bombers have made their way into heaviiy populated areas to detonate themselves while concealed by burkas. Burkas are used to conceal unbelievably deadly weapons. AK47's, grenades, even grenade launchers have been found concealed under the ample fabric of burkas. AT least with baggy clothes and trench coats there is the possibility of identifying the culprit before he or she commits the atrocity. Try cashing a check or paying a traffic fine or opening a bank account while wearing a full head covering motorcycle helmet with dark visor and see how far it gets you. Walking up to a teller in a bank so concealed will usually have you expelled or, more likely, having the teller push the alert/robbery button under her desk. No one wants to deal with anyone who is a hidden invisible entity. The use of a burka prevents anyone from knowing who or what is beneath the concealment. It is an open invitation to criminals of all sorts to operate in complete anonymity. Totally unacceptable in an open society.

Written debates are different because the words themselves have to be taken at their literal value. Accent and pace and attempts at sly humor are impossible to detect from a written sentence. I am saying that the use of the burka is fine for anyone who is avoiding direct sunlight or is hoping that a neighbor whom they abhor doesn't recognize them. But when it comes to the point where the use of the burka is used as a means of impeding the identity of anyone I am totally against it. I will not and do not want to associate with anyone who wants to interact with me while totally concealed and who's communication (much of it conveyed by facial expression) is hidden from me. I don't condone wearing it. It doesn't wash with me. I have no more to say on this topic.

I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Romney invokes church as reason for not releasing taxes Election 2012 (US) 2 08/26/2012 09:21
Lobby Day for Reason: March 23, 2012 Secular Activism 1 12/10/2011 11:17
One reason why people are distrustful of government U.S. Politics 12 09/23/2010 21:39
Say hello to X woman, your long-lost cousin Evolution 7 04/02/2010 13:03
Are liberals and atheists smarter. Why atheism? 13 03/04/2010 07:37