From a 2010 article on the Rapid City Journal titled "Two square off for county coroner", Rebecca Sotherland engages in a little self-analysis to woo voters:

"SOTHERLAND – I am a South Dakota Certified Law Enforcement Officer trained in death investigation, with specialized Coroner training. In the two years that I have been your County Coroner, my compassion for those in my community has grown exponentially. I have included a few of my duties so you can make an informed decision about who is best suited for the job as your County Coroner. I would appreciate your vote on November 6!"

She won.

The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi

@lucky760

Well, the terminology you used is a bit charged, isn't it? "Manipulate oneself" into feeling something? Compassion is all about putting yourself in someone else's shoes--imagining being them. It's not manipulation; it's actually perfectly natural thanks to mirror neurons--when we see other people in pain we activate the areas in our brain as if we were experiencing pain. The thing is, our higher order cognitive abilities can override this natural function. Basically compassion is our natural state and we later learn how to turn it off. I'm sure there is some evolutionary advantage to that but what I've been trying to discuss here are the disadvantages.

But that's more of an aside to the main issue. The main point is we both agree that showing compassion is important. Splitting hairs about the semantics of feeling/showing compassion doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll simply tip my hat to you for being willing to engage in this conversation with me for so long and be on my way.

The distinction here is that you're talking about showing compassion, which I'm all for, versus feeling compassionate.

One cannot choose to feel compassion for someone. It either is or it isn't a person's natural reaction. If someone's visceral response to something does not include the feeling of compassion, how could they manipulate themselves into feeling it?

That's like trying to force someone to love you, except it's more complicated because you'd be trying to force yourself to love yourself. (That'd be a form of sexual assault in some municipalities.)

@lucky760

Showing compassion is a choice. I don't doubt for a second that a majority of people in the world agree with your viewpoint the guy in the video doesn't deserve to be shown compassion because a) he was engaging in a crime and b) his injuries are a direct result of the actions he took.

And that's specifically why I responded to your post and the point I've been trying to make throughout this conversation: choosing not to have compassion for fellow human beings--making arbitrary decisions about who deserves and does not deserve compassion--leads exactly to the kind of mess you now see in Gaza, Syria, the Ukraine, and the U.S. prison system (John Oliver's vid explains clearly that the situation has gotten so bad because it's easy for people not to care about convicted criminals).

Yes, you are right about the Gaza vid--the Israelis want revenge. They want revenge because they no longer look at Gazans as humans worthy of compassion but as "the other," an enemy that must be conquered. Again, arbitrarily choosing who to have and not to have compassion for gives us exactly the world we have now--a world where people can cheer the bombing of civilians.

Ghandi once said be the change in the world you want to see--and followed through in a way that changed not just India's future but that of the world (with his effect on the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., on Mandela's movement to abolish apartheid in South African, etc.). I have no idea how you imagined up I was proposing compassion re-education camps. I'm simply pointing out to you and anyone else who cares to read that you have a choice. You can choose to believe and act the same as we as a species always have (and get in return the world we currently have) or you can choose to try to move beyond our genetic and environmental predispositions and work towards a potentially better world.

Then again, you've already said you'd call an ambulance and run over to help the guy in the vid if you saw this happen, so I think it's safe to say you do feel some compassion for the guy even if you think what he did was stupid and irresponsible. Your initial posts made it sound like you didn't care at all, which is partly what led me to respond because frankly I didn't really believe that--and I'm glad I was right about that at least even if I'm completely wrong about humanity as you suggest.

I'm glad at least your salient points have some real significance and depth, but I still think you have an unrealistic view of humanity.

Human nature is what it has evolved to be, a complex system of values and emotions dictated by your genes, environment, and life experiences.

That's the origin of your philosophy and mine. As nice as it is to imagine that the world would be a wonderful place if they all had the same compassion you have, it's just not something that can or would ever be a reality because everyone, same as you and me, cannot just dictate their core beliefs to their subconscious.

Even if I agreed that I should think as you do (and I don't), would that mean whenever I have a natural, instinctive opinion about something that doesn't conform to your beliefs I'm supposed to pretend or go to a re-education camp until I really do believe?

There's a place called North Korea where they force everyone to think a specific way or pretend they do, and it just doesn't work. That's not human nature.

I would argue it's a manifestation of the same kind of thinking. Those Israelis believe the Gazan's are simply reaping what they sowed by supporting Hamas and therefore withhold compassion. Conversely, Hamas thinks it's okay to lob rockets at Israelis because the Israelis have occupied Palestine and set up the most egregious apartheid system in history (or as the UN Humanitarian Chief John Holmes called it in 2010, the world's largest "open air prison.").

Both sides have lost compassion for the other and that's why the violence continues unabated.

@lucky760

Oh, I totally agree--it is a difference of philosophy. But which philosophy is going to lead to a better world?

Look, you don't care some guys got shot after committing a crime. I do. Why? Because it's all directly connected to the rest of us. Why did they commit the crime? How did they get to that point in their lives where they felt it was okay to put others in harm's way? Most importantly, how do we help prevent other people from ending up in that place, so that we're not the ones being put in harm's way next time?

A philosophy of indifference is unlikely to get one to seek answers to those questions: those guys got shot because they were "dumb" or because they were "scum" or some other simplistic answer that leads to no change happening in the world.

But on an even more fundamental level, getting shot hurts pretty bad (I've had friends who have been shot and survived) and on just that level alone I empathize with the guys. We're biologically wired to empathize with other people's pain (mirror neurons) but we can also override that biological response and act callously toward our fellow humans.

I believe compassion is the only way we are ever going to solve the world's major problems, particularly violent conflict. Lack of compassion--even for people who should know better or people who disregard their own safety--is only ever going to give us exactly the world we have now.

>> So if it was a friend who was down on his luck and desperate to get some quick cash, you wouldn't give a shit that he got run over because he acted impulsively and did something stupid?

That's correct. Things not specific to that but along those lines have happened in my life, and that was my reaction.


>> Or how about if you saw this happen on the street. You wouldn't call an ambulance because the guy got was coming to him?

There you go again mixing up not feeling sorry for someone with thinking he deserves it. Of course I would call an ambulance. I would very likely even rush over to try and help. I wouldn't *want* the guy to get maimed or killed. But if he did that to himself I'd just feel it's his own fault.


>> I call that basic human compassion.

That's where we differ. I don't.

A few days ago a team of heavily armed gunmen robbed a bank. Afterward they were involved in a chase and gunfight with police. One of the three robbers was shot dead and the others were injured.

Do you feel sympathy for the robbers? I'm sure you must. Do I? No, I don't, not even a little bit.

Not every negative event (that results in pain/suffering) in every single person's life is precious, nor does it warrant or deserve compassion when they intentionally caused it themselves and it could have been completely avoided.


Let's just call it a difference in philosophy.

@lucky760

So if it was a friend who was down on his luck and desperate to get some quick cash, you wouldn't give a shit that he got run over because he acted impulsively and did something stupid? Or how about if you saw this happen on the street. You wouldn't call an ambulance because the guy got was coming to him? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.

I personally believe that not caring for other people's suffering is the primary cause of suffering in the world. Like Chaos, I'm not saying the guy's actions are excusable in any way. But he's a person who was probably in a lot of pain after this and as a fellow human being I feel bad for him, even though it was a direct consequence of the decision he made.

You call that "bleeding heart."

I call that basic human compassion.

And judging by the shit that's happening in Ukraine, Syria, and Gaza right this instant I'd say there's far too little of it in the world right now.

Showing compassion and logic, good man. Besides, it was entirely 1 sided with no signs of struggle on his part, therefore it was not a "fight" for him.

The definition of "fighting" requires there be a struggle on the "fighters" part.

A human is to humanity, as an elephant is to elephanty.....a collection of cells contained with a womb, not yet born, not yet given rise to conciousness, the ability to think cognicent ideas, the ability to understand, language, comprehension, maths, compassion, empathy, society etc...this is what dictates humanity, not just the species by which the genome belongs.

The ability to participate.

These fetuses are not human, not yet. They are still developing.

Their brains have not developed enough to even breathe, let alone have cognitive thinking.

This is no more 'murder' than killing a common house fly is 'murder'.

To let it continue to grow, to force a woman to term given negative outcomes for both the child, the parent, and society in general as a result of not being ready or prepared, either due to finance or social circumstance, all in the name of your religious or political beliefs, is such a massive irony filled injustice on our society....and its a shame that you cant see it.

I struggled with The Office, mainly because I've worked for people very much like David Brent and couldn't see the funny side. But I've just started watching his latest series Derek and it's completely changed my view of him. It's amazingly well written. He manages to get The most immature dick jokes in there, racist or obscene jokes, physical comedy, clowning, subtle puns and wordplay but all in a plot that is one of the most touching and heartfelt I've seen for a long time, comedy or not.

Great british comedy, like Only Fools and Horses, or Open All Hours, are all about compassion and love. They're funny, but the characters are so well written you really care for them. The writers of Only Fools and Horses managed to write an episode about one of the main characters having a miscarriage. There were jokes throughout the hospital scenes but somehow they didn't stop it being truly tragic, they didn't trivialise it. It was devastating, but funny at the same time.

I'm not sure Derek is quite that level, but it's getting there. It's made me laugh and cry, sometimes at the same time. He's undoubtedly a very clever man and going up in my estimations all the time

I just disagree on all counts with you here.

What we need to do in these instances is try to help these people understand that gay marriage is okay.

Instead we force them to accept it which just not only further cements their beliefs but it will turn people who are more Laissez-faire about the issue into part of the larger problem. In my opinion this will only breed further extremism and more home grown terrorism.

You win stuff like this by being better than the other side. With love and compassion. Not forcing them to step in line.

Meh, everyone is either agnostic, lying or mad. As @newtboy said, gnosticism means "knowing". No-one knows for certain that there is or isn't a god. Therefore, everyone is agnostic.

Which makes it a fucking boring position to take.

Gnosticism at least has the virtue of being interesting. You know there's a god? ok, why? Ahh, you've heard voices.... right. Just slip on this comfy jacket... yeah, the arms are kinda long, but don't worry.

The question is almost never "do you know there is or isn't a god", it's "do you believe". And in that sense, almost everyone has an answer one way or the other. You may choose to believe in a god because you feel that things like compassion, rainbows and the majesty of the universe are evidence of his/her existence. Or you choose not to believe because you feel that these things are evidence of group altruism, refraction and some really amazingly weird ass physics.

Yeah, be humble and admit you could be wrong, but FFS, make a choice.

Oh and @Yogi, I wonder how kindly you'd feel toward religion if you had a well funded organisation who had dedicated themselves to discrediting your life's work (and with the most trivial nonsense as well).

And that is why we have "atheist evangelists". Because experience has shown that if you don't push back, certain theist elements will gradually start to encroach on things that are important.