@Psychologic

Now this I agree with. "Gangs" or tribes of people dominating other people is the more natural condition, not libertarian ideals. The notion of individual rights is very new, and defies the natural order of our evolution. The drift towards collective authoritarian systems is only natural, as a result. This is why, often times, I overstress the need for liberties and freedoms, because they are destined to erode, it is our natural tendency.

However, I still see the only answer to the plagues that humanity unleashes on itself as personal, individual choice and responsibility. Someone here on the sift said something to the effect that he believes that Aspergers is the next stage of human evolution, I am starting to see the wisdom in the statement. Only when the violent, overly competitive sections of our DNA are extinguished can we ever have uncompromising peace.

Commander Adama said it best "We never asked ourselves, are we worthy of survival?" It isn't enough to live, or to kill people. It isn't enough to have laws that punish evil doers. We must not have evil doers, it is the only solution that has humanity survive for any geologically significant time frame. The Meta game for humanity is only just begun.

God = all-powerful. God = Father. God = Son. God = Ghost;

then: Father = all-powerful. Son = all-powerful. Ghost = all-powerful.

All powerful = No need; therefore: Son = No need.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Again, they're not the same people. Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to His Father. When He became human, He took on our nature and weaknesses..it was necessarily for Him to pray for the same reasons it is necessary for us to pray. Your view point is not only not trinitarian, because you're implying there is no difference between Jesus and the Father, it is completely ignorant of basic theology.

Again, they're not the same person. Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to His Father. When He became human, He took on our nature and weaknesses..it was necessarily for Him to pray for the same reasons it is necessary for us to pray. Your view point is not only not trinitarian, because you're saying there is no difference between Jesus and the Father, it is just completely ignorant of basic theology.

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You said "Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being pray to itself and not grant itself the thing wished for
Jesus wasn't praying to Himself, He was praying to the Father..they're different people. Therefore, your view is not trinitarian.
My viewpoint is that Jesus was and is fully God, which is the trinitarian view. That He took on the nature of man for our sake does not diminish His divine nature, which is affirmed in the nicean creed. It would be helpful in this discussion if you actually knew what you were talking about. Here is a resource:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.htm
http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature
>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What Der said pretty much 100 percent of Christians would call flawed..what I said, not so much..most Christians believe in the trinity. I had personal revelation the trinity is truth before I ever became a Christian.
>> ^schlub:
I love how all xtians have their own interpretation of their religion and they insist that their interpretation is the correct one. There are many other xtians who would call your "understanding" flawed, shinyblurry...
>> ^shinyblurry:
Jesus had a dual nature, he was both man and God. He was made a little lower than the angels for our sake, and He put aside all that was His due to suffer for us..Your understanding here is just hopelessly flawed..it's a cute little atheist meme but it has no theological basis. Jesus and the Father are not the same person..they are one in the essential nature of being God, but they are different people.



Well aaaactually your viewpoint would be Nontrinitarian by definition. So according to this, my view of Trinity is correct:
According to this doctrine, God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."


Why would an omniscient and omnipotent being need to pray? "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient." ... which is still trinitarian. Just not your personal definition of it.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.


Hopefully the people. I believe that their should be government but government without elected representatives I long for a direct democracy with resolutions and legislation voted for/against by everyone, where no-one is allowed to starve to death because they can't work, where the long term goals of the human race can be debated and considered and where money and its corrupting influences can be learned about in history classes not fought over.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.

Is any of what you said meant to serve as some argument in favor of libertarianism?
All of those things are issues I'd love to address. What's the course of action you suggest? Do you claim to have better ideas on how to solve them? Out with 'em then.


No, none of what I mentioned is really political at all, even though it directly relates. What my message did note is that without effort from the people even the most successful government format can do nothing. And the funny part is, if the masses are educated, hardworking, freedom loving, and kind and generous, then they would make perfect libertarians. They wouldn't need government to tell them how to live. Unfortunately--that's not the case, and so our government is screwed no matter what form it takes.

But sadly, I see no way out. Term limits have created a horrible environment in Florida, where Pols just grab for quick power even faster. The gulf of the Mexico will either be drilled for by the U.S. or some other nation (And we get polluted either way.) Heck, the only way to stop other countries from stripping the world of its resources would be to war, or cease trading--which is not going to happen.

And you should know I do not defend libertarianism Net, it is only as good as its people. And the active people today (I.e., the tea party) would turn this country into flames. With that said, god I am tired. Did that make any sense? I guess I have to read it tomorrow.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.


Is any of what you said meant to serve as some argument in favor of libertarianism?

All of those things are issues I'd love to address. What's the course of action you suggest? Do you claim to have better ideas on how to solve them? Out with 'em then.

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.

@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.

Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.

Wow, I just know I'd hate it from the description... 'socioeconomic monetary paradigm', a subject matter that 'will transcend the issues of cultural relativism and traditional ideology'? "life ground" attributes? "extrapolating those immutable natural laws"! "new sustainable social paradigm called a "Resource-Based Economy" "

My GOD I hate people who roll out such utter bullshit wording to describe things. Sounds like a company head trying to sell his latest middle management program.

Urgh

Actually, almost any description that uses 'paradigm' is almost guaranteed to be a wankfest.

"The nature of our nature is not to be particularly constrained by our nature"??? (I just jumped around a bit to get a feel for the piece, and that's what I hit on straight away)

@shinyblurry

Sorry for the delay... had some "real life" to deal with (as well as a little sift-nonsense).

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning.

Yes, but that's not what we were talking about. You said all matter (material) sprang forth from nothing and BBT doesn't agree.

What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

You're the one who said we only act selfishly, not me. I don't believe that at all. My point was specifically that both selfish and non-selfish behavior are part of our nature to varying degrees and that non-selfish behavior tends to benefit us (biologically) more as a species than selfish behavior. That's all that's necessary for evolution to provide morality.

What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement.

I think you're arguing whether or not this is a good system whereas I'm just stating that it's how it works. However, if we follow through on your example, those two men would probably face severe punishment (and/or death) for those actions because they went against the consensus of what the larger population thinks is moral behavior. Evolution by both natural and artificial selection.

While it's a subtle distinction, I believe it's an important one: There's a difference between making a decision based on your emotions and making a decision based on how it will effect other people. Yes, I believe that not causing harm or distress to other people is an objective base. I realize that's controversial.

Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion.

Agree. Unfortunately that's all we've got. Even your God doesn't stop or prevent people from doing horrible things. He leaves us to fend for ourselves and do the best we can.

God told us that everyone is equal. The bible is the original source for the conception of equality for all people, men and women, free or not. Knowing that, I would never deign to be someones "master", since I myself am only a servent and no better than they are.

God told us that it's ok to beat a slave as long as we don't kill him. Only Israelites are above slavery.

In Exodus we're told that if a bull goes on a killing spree, the bull and the bull's owner are to be put to death. However, if the bull kills slaves, then the bull's owner owes the slaves' owners some cash.

The NT is a little softer (not surprisingly) on slaves, but still states that it's ok to own people so long as you treat them reasonably well.

Generally, were you ok with slavery and other immoral acts before your conversion? Did you really need to be told that these things were wrong? Or did you already know? I bet you already knew and I bet you were no less moral a person then than you are now.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.

Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.
The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.
I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."
Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.
You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

The way of science isn't to fill in the blanks with wild speculation. Ok, every hypothesis starts with a guess, but the blank isn't truly filled in until its been tested. Your right though, humanities curious nature seems to be born out of a fundamental fear of the unknown, and we'll make up any fairy tale to help us sleep. I honestly wish we could embrace our ignorance without shame, after all, ignorance is really only damaging when you delude yourself into thinking you know the answers you don't. Do I hate the people that jumped to the wrong conclusion, not really, but I can't say I think much of the people who propogated the lie.

Small pox is gone. So yes, eradication is possible given persistence and commitment.

Weaker than natures wrath? That is some mighty fine grandstanding there, going for the nomination of best dramatic comment . Frankly, medicine and food are the two most important areas science has advanced. For instance, mortality rates for mothers giving birth is less than 1%, down from nearly 10% so many years ago. And this malevolent force of nature to which you refer hasn't struck every first born yet.


I agree with the jist of your comment mostly, though. If my child just got diagnosed with autism, I would be looking for answers, and vaccines would seem to be a smart place to look, strange men in lab coats poking children with needles is an easy target.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.

Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.
The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.
I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."
Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.
You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.


Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.

The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.

I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."

Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.

You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

I recommend you all forget about the Kubrick / Spielberg melodrama and go read the source material. Brian Aldiss eventually wrote three short stories about David. In fact, in a foreword titled "attempting to please" he talks about Kubrick, Spielberg, AI, etc. It's quite interesting. Here, let me type out a bit of it:

"So why was 'Supertoys' not filmed? [...] My belief is that he [Kubrick] was basically mistaken. Obsessed with the big blockbuster SF movies of the time, he was determined to take my sorrowing domestic scene out into the galaxy. After all, he had wrought similarly to great success with [Arthur C.] Clarke's story.

But 'The Sentinel' looks outward to begin with. It speaks of a mystery elsewhere, whereas 'Supertoys' speaks of a mystery within. David suffers because he does not know he is a machine. Here is the real drama; as Mary Shelley said of her Frankenstein, it 'speaks to the mysterious fears of our nature'.

A possible film could be made of 'Supertoys' showing David facing his real nature. It comes as a shock to realise he is a machine. He malfunctions. Perhaps his father takes him to a factory where a thousand identical androids step off the line. Does he autodestruct? The audience should be subjected to a tense and alarming drama of claustrophobia, to be left with the final questions, 'Does it matter that David is a machine? Should it matter? And to what extent are we all machines?'

Behind such metaphysical puzzles remains the simple story - the story that attracted Stanley Kubrick - of a boy who was never able to please his mother. A story of love rejected."

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I'm mostly in agreement with Napolitano on this, which is a rarity. I still don't see how any semi-intelligent politician can look at America without seeing that we're an empire. Newt Gingrich knows it, but he'll be damned if he'll admit it. And did you see how Gingrich tried to conflate the Iranian revolution with the war(s) we're fighting now? For him it must be one gigantic war against Islam.
The Crusades lasted 200 years. How long will our crusades last?


What I wonder is how humanity will survive when technology reaches a point where doomsday level destruction is a 7-11 away. How can we continue to exist when the brutal animal nature is only a mood swing away from the complete eradication of human civilization from the planet? Technology is always heralded as the great salvation of man, but it will only be so it the brutal nature of our nature is changed...or it will be our doom.

The problem I see here is that the video author is assuming that all the problems created are actually philosophical in nature. The big problem is the human mind and our nature.

We have been selected to first, fight or flight at any unknown variable. Second, evolution plays its core tenet: survival of the fittest (which has a part to play in all these examples). Third, you have resources--which in turn go back to number two. Lastly, reproduction comes into play.

Sillma and Crosswords touched on this. We have to figure out a solution to force a change in our predisposed evolution. Whether that be a biological or technological (or both) solution. What would any such society do about sociopaths? They, by definition, will not understand "being good".

I hope we can get to a semi-Utopian like society, but it will be a mammoth undertaking. The changes he talked about are far easier in comparison (physics and astronomy--oh, and since when was quantum mechanics not messy ). The Utopian change will require an upheaval at every facet of society: government, trade, religion, decisions, structural, biological, technological, industrial, etc...

/I'd like to live in a nice paradise, but this approach would require too much from the one source that made it in the first place.