Housepig

Ok, I've read through your rant, and I agree in parts but not in others. I'll respond to your points individualy. [hide=] I don't think the government can do anything about it. It all comes down to psychology; we're going to go through a 'dip'; the only question is how far we will fall and for how long. Besides, do you honestly think our capitalism is good? I say we embrace the recession. Very true. People need to accept that they only have themselves to blame...though it's complanency and excessive wealth that are the root causes. Another reason why the recession could be beneficial. It's about relativity. Hotels very rarely blow up in the West, so people make a big deal when one does. In Iraq and the Middle East, however, stuff like that happens all the time, so it's very hard to get upset about it. I really have no idea what you're on about here. I don't see why we should exclude from the UN purely for being authoritarian. It's a far more effective way of getting things done--but people are always going to abuse their power. I agree about people being able to speak out though; any well-meaning government has nothing to hide and can produce a valid argument against any possible complaint. Censorhip about swearing and so on is just ignorant. Swearing wouldn't be offensive if people were allowed to do it. With regards to political censorhip...I explained my views their above. Yup. Again, I don't know what you're trying to say. Comparing US/Mexico relations with a father fighting with his family? One would think he'd have some dignity in grief. I guess some people are just shallow and greedy. Like Jade Goody. You mean American imperialism? I agree with you there. I do think that the amalgamation of countries is a good idea, but American culture would hardly be beneficial the US were to build an empire or even to lead the amalgamation. I don't see what's stopping them from going in there and making North Korea disarm. It's probable that they won't actualy disarm their bases--otherwise they'd have no cards to play--and the danger will only increase the longer the UN refrains from taking action. general:[to soldier] welcome home soldier you did a mighty fine job protecting freedom in the name of the united states. you now have a government pension and the experience you need to go out into the job feild. but good luck gettin' a job. [runs away] Going to explode? A slight overstatement, but I agree. We consume far to much energy, and it's all down to overpopulation: the Earth cannot sustain 7 Billion people for an indefinate length of time. People are always going to be poor. If we let people fend for themselves more, then natural selection (for memes in the short-term) will make society's capability advance, and so we will be able to acomplish more. Now you're saying socialism is bad? [/hide]

yes, of course. the bible can barely be taken into account considering today's world.. we're supposed to call a priest if there is mold in our house? when was the last time you did that? very true. i am raised a catholic however my mother and maternal grandmother(only living grandparent) are both agnostics- i have realized over the years that they are both very brilliant women. they play by the rules, and don't try to press their beliefs on others (some religions could learn from this >.>). my father's family is irish- all roman catholics. my father talks about how losing his father at a young age crushed his faith in god. at a time my father (and his 5 siblings) needed god the most- he wasn't anywhere to be found. don't get me wrong, i still have faith in me, and i'm not going around bashing anybody elses religion. i enjoy the feeling i get when i go to pass. and i occasionally have guilt in my when i do things i shouldn't do. sometimes i go out of the way to do the right thing, or to keep my mouth shut- hoping to please someone up there. we've all thought about it. Guilt isn't an exclusively religious thing. I don't know if that's what you were trying to say, but it sounded like it.

I'm all for it. Embryos aren't people as far as I'm concerned, and if it can cure genetic diseases, that's great. It depends how and for what these stem cells help for...I know we can cure cancer with it (least in theory?) but can we predetermine baby's eye, skin, hair colour, etc? That's something that would come from genetic engineering in general. I think Stem Cell only affects regenerating cells. Then again, I know the bare minimum about it :lol: Not sure about the technicals, but that's an awesome idea. Genetic engineering has masses of potential.

Thats ignoring basic psychology, it takes much longer than six months for most people to grapple with a new scale, let alone 5 or 6 new scales, and your idea of leaving anyone behind who doesnt come up to your standards is pretty poor and uncompassionate. Just simply saying 'its their problem' also isnt accurate, when your economy crashes because people are taking 3 or 4 times longer to complete every job they do, its not gonna just be their problem That wouldn't happen--not to that extent. Perhaps the economy would suffer at first, but that's an overstatement. People who still hadn't a clue would pick it up quickly enough, and it would be worth it in the long run. You either suffer momentarily a slight blip in production levels, or you continue using an inefficient mearuement system purely out of terror over that blip. Besides, most scales show both systems (at least in the UK).

And respecting opinions purely because they're 'personal beliefs' isn't ignorant? Hitler had strong personal beliefs; we ought to respect them; never mind the fact they happened to include mass genocide. I don't respect his beliefs, nor do I respect the beliefs of Al-Qiueda (spelling...) or Sarah Palin. There's no difference. You can't pinpoint the generation when whatever primordial creature was laying eggs at that time evolved into a what we call a chicken.

You're so full of [cabbage]. People generalize on what type of a person someone is by what they wear all the time. jesus christ, you ever been to a public high school? So during the times a slavery if black people wore different clothing people would treat them differently? What the hell...? He's talking about public high school not Southern Plantation circa 1800. It's still the same thing. White people didn't like how Africans lived so they singled them out for it. One kid doesn't like how another kid lives so he singles the other kid out for it. People didn't like how Indians lived so they singled them out for it. People didn't like how Nazi Germany lived so they singled them out for it. It's all the same thing we're just talking about on how cruel a scale it is in these places. Like I said it's cruel but it's the truth. It's not the clothes; it's the attitude. I know one guy at my school who goes about with a pink rucksack yet is still never picked on; it's normaly him who's picking on people, actualy. Most of it just comes down to self-confidence. Then again, my school is supposedly pretty good, so perhaps it's difference at rougher schools. I don't see why we should have to wear school uniform. Unless a it's discovered to cause worse grades or more bullying, I say scrap it. Though I do think discipline at schools needs to be much stricter...

The Imperial system is just plain stupid. I'm sure there was a reason for the way they set it out, but the metric system is far easier to do calculations with. Imperial/Metric conversions should be printed on information boards, banners, and broadcast on TV--or anywhere they can get them--for six months; after that six months, everything is done in metric. It's not worth the effort going along every stretch of motorway correcting every sign to Killometres, but everything new should be done in Metric. If people haven't learnt the conversions by then, it's their problem. When told to sink or swim, people invariablt sink; immigrants pick up their new languages extremely fast, for example.

Human behaviour is often irrational because emotion and how we are brought up influence are actions. Intersting idea, but I have to disagree. Animals act on instinct, and so have no sentience or ability to determine rationality...but I guess natural selection would make sure no animals who acted irrationaly in terms of survival exist. Logic is the processes by which we think, so you could say we invented it. Trouble is, people's minds are being molded--some greatly, some less so--from the day they are born, so no two people will exhibit the same logic. Raise five people with the same IQ in a sterile environment, exposing them all to the exact same experiences for twenty-one years (or whenever the brain reaches full maturity). Then ask them any moral or philosophical question, and I am confident they will come to the same conclusion, given the same evidence to evaluate. Thus you have created a definition of logic, from which all people can be judged.

There is realy no reason to keep it alive. It may not be suffering, but the mother will go through the agony of both the baby's death and realisation that it's not living anyway, so I say, best to get it over with quickly. The longer she keeps on deluding herself, the more it will hurt to realise. It may sound cruel, but forced euthanasia is the best option. I was appalled by her comments on people who disagree with her burning in hell. It's sickening to think that there are people who actualy think like that. Religion is one thing, but that is just...beyond words. "This is real life, not a text book." Has she ever considered the fact that textbooks are about real life? Or does she think they just sprang into being, an alternate reality where the world is different?

"No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary"--Arthur Conan Doyle (I think).

I wouldn't recommend that. Unless you're an extremely introverted person, teaching yourself is going to be a lot more boring than going to school. At least school keeps your mind of things. What you need to do is make an effort to be more positive. I would recommend becoming more outgoing, but if socialising isn't what you need, a slightly reckless attitude to life is always helpful. You need to do things to take your mind of why you are unhappy, and you need to change your mentality: it's probably not perfect for everyone, but I find the easiest way to overcome my lack of self-confidence is just to repeat to myself "I am confident" or something along those lines until I genuinely believe it. You could try a similar sort of therapy.

I just follow the philosophy of be yourself and tell others to get [bleeb]ed if they don't like it. My school really isn't all that bad; it's only geeks or outcasts who lack self-confidence who get picked on. I don't give a damn about how I'm supposed to act, so I guess I'll never be incredibly popular, but I don't get picked on and I have a fair number of friends. I used to be different to the point of being obnoxious, so it's not surprising I got picked on. I try not to be arrogant towards conformists now, but it took years before I realised that was my mistake.

Scientology. Someone else already said it, so I'm safe from Chuck Norris. Now there's a relief.

I don't have much of a social life exactly, and I can't recall the last time I went out with friends, but my parents are pretty much laid back about what I do or don't do. I haven't had a detention in months (and I have only once gotten one for a just reason in my entire secondary school life), I do most of my homework well before time, and I'm getting moslty A's; so they know I'm perfectly capable of doing my schoolwork without being nagged. I have no desire to rebel, and they have no desire to restrict me: it's a good relationship.

Spoken like a true wannabe communist (or otherwise) dictator. I never said I should be a dictator; that's just my view on freedom. I'm sure there are many, many people who would do a much better job than me.

I have. Why is it not possible for all generalisations to be false? (Because saying so is itself a generalisation, making the the statement untrue)

Banned for existing.

9,118

x/10, then. I ate a fishfinger sandwich.

housxdep;ikg. Either I am poorly co-ordinated, or I have abnormaly large elbows...

Careless

Except immigrants aren't allowed to run for president and the rich still dominate the country. You're a fool if you believe any country really lives with true democracy. True democracy? Maybe not, but that's not the point I'm making. That's just the affect of social status, which exists in any society exept true Communism. Good point. A sensible, thoughtful populace would be capable of governing themselves...but you still have the problem of bad motives, no matter how wise the populace may be. If a wise population voted in a party with good ideas to improve the country, that's all very well--on the surface. What if that party cared only for power, not for actualy acomplishing anything? It would only be a matter of time before the people wanted something less beneficial, and then your pretty much back to square one; people are always going to make poor decisions because of emotion and personal beliefs. It may sound sinister, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that our leaders have got to the stage of seeking power purely for the hell of it. There were certainly some genuine politicians earlier in the 20th century, but today's seem just to believe in whatever happens to be popular. Whoa. Going all Big Brother on my [wagon]. I don't understand how people can think that would be better than what we have now - which isn't the best, but it's better ... Maybe people get all fluffed up and think they're the ones that will be these benevolent dictators instead of the slaves? (Not directed at you, a lot of people think that) If the entire human race was ruled by a benevolent dictator and no others, one person would get the benefits of a so-called perfect world. Man, that would really be lame. How exactly are we supposed to evolve and grow? Well, people would have to be chosen--and a having permanent dictator would be foolish in the extreme. I didn't mean to go all Big Brother (or indeed anything) on your arse, but perhaps that was a poor explanation. I meant that I belive people should have a free press and freedom of speach, but that they should have to accept that ultimately, if the government choses to do something they object to, they have to accept it.

That was my point. Wouldn't be religion then. What do you mean? Your point seemed to be something along the lines of "it's stupid and anti-religious to belief in things because of proof". Teehee. Darth Vader. But, anyways, why? What harm have my personal beliefs caused you? No harm whatsoever. I don't mean that you're beliefs hurt me; I mean that your...honesty about how irrational religion is and your acceptance of this fact without being swayed by it defies...reason. And that worries me. Don't take this personaly, but this mentality you have just convinces me that there realy is no point debating religion with some people--exept for the fact I enjoy it. babies are born agnostic, you cant call them atheist when they havent thought about matters involving god. Site a legit source on the scientist and intelligence claims, I highly doubt both of them. But the only babies brought up to be religious don't turn out atheist. Oh, and here's your source: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1384909. Note the phrase "Religious believers as a group were found to be significantly less intelligent...than religious skeptics.

I suppose that would work in theory, but people are always going to be ignorant. Poor upbringings, social class, wealth and lifestyle, personal beliefs, ulterior motives, and genetics mean that a population will never be a rational, informed, well-meaning unit. And how would this idea of educating people to know what they need work in a democratic society? It would be seen as political manipulation; all the parties in a democracy would have something to say about what's best. I mean, it would just turn into the current government teaching propaganda in schools. And the chances that that government would be a good one are very slim indeed.

No, because the picture would undoubtedly be photoshopped. I meant real, scientific evidence would convince me, not some picture of 'God'--and even if I was convinced...I reserve the opinion that God may exist, but even if he did, who says he is the Christian God and that the Bible came directly from him? If he was real, the Bible would mostl likely be a myth attempting to explain him, not a factual account. I find your faith disturbing. Someone once said "It is impossible to reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into", and I think that describes the situation here pretty well. As for your point about friendship...is there any other reason to be friends with someone? I certainly can't think of one. But you can neither prove nor disprove God, thats why it takes more faith to be an athiest. You have to believe that life is pointless whilst also straying away from the majority. Nor can you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But do you believe in it? Takes more faith to be an athiest? Hardly. All babies are athiests; almost all scientists are atheists. There has been a proven negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. As for straying away from the majority...that comes natural to me. You'll never get anywhere in life if you aren't prepared to. Of course life is pointless. The only point in life is to enjoy it while you can; I personaly find it very uplifting to think about how the wonderful (and somewhat less wonderful) things in the world came about by chance. But then if people believing in God comforts them, and makes life a little better, do they need proof? Does a mysterious man dressed in white have to come down and show us all that he created the earth? There are also many things in the world that scientists can't explain and until they do, people will still say that God created it all. It's all about what gives you happiness, I suppose. If believing in some divine power comforts people so, be it. However, while that may be a valid reason for believing in God, it is still scientificaly invalid. Desiring something does not make it any more likely. I admit that God existing would be a nice thought when in pain or unhappy, but surely it's better to deal with our problems ourselves than to fall back on an imaginary friend? I'm sure that's psychologicaly unhealthy. About things science cannot explain...what if they said "but they will explain it one day"? That's what I belive. Where would we be if, whenever scientists found a phenomenon inexplainable, they abandoned their research and published the conclusion "God did it."? Fortunately, they instead continue researching until they find the explanation. And they invariably do. [/hide] But where does it all end? Why do humans crave to know everything? There used to be a place in everyone for God but because of science that has been replaced with.... nothing. I don't believe in the "christian" God as such but I do believe in a higher power. There was one scientific argument that can't be explained (I think so anyway) If people believe that the big bang occured, then some outside force must have pushed them into motion (newtons 1st law ftw) because an object can't move by itself. Another one is "We can.t see God." Well, we can;t see gravity eityher, that doesnt meen it doesnt exist? But if God started it, what created God? And yeah, that "We can't see God" argument proves that atheists can be just as stupid as theists. Human stupidity will never be solved, even if we were all atheist.