We hold these truths to be self-evident ( i.e. completely unsupported by reasoned argument), that all men (except blacks and Muslims) are created equal (in all ways other than: intelligence, looks, social status, physical ability and emotional disposition), that they are endowed by their Creator (Richard Dawkins) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (or capital punishment), Liberty (or indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo Bay) and the pursuit of limitless personal wealth, regardless of environmental impact. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (but never amongst women), deriving their just powers from the manipulation of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to eat cheap pizzas and over-sized hamburgers until they are clinically obese, laying its foundation on such adipose tissue and organizing its powers in mud-wrestling contests, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their appetite for more pizzas and burgers. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that hog-guts long established should not be changed for light and transient waist-lines; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to fat, sugar and salt, while salads are insufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of hog-meat arrives, it is their right, it is their duty, to present the King of Great Britain with a full rack of ribs and Kentucky barbeque sauce. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candied world.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 06:20:11 AM
We hold these truths to be self-evident ( i.e. completely unsupported by reasoned argument), that all men (except blacks and Muslims) are created equal (in all ways other than: intelligence, looks, social status, physical ability and emotional disposition), that they are endowed by their Creator (Richard Dawkins) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life (or capital punishment), Liberty (or indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo Bay) and the pursuit of limitless personal wealth, regardless of environmental impact. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (but never amongst women), deriving their just powers from the manipulation of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to eat cheap pizzas and over-sized hamburgers until they are clinically obese, laying its foundation on such adipose tissue and organizing its powers in mud-wrestling contests, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their appetite for more pizzas and burgers. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that hog-guts long established should not be changed for light and transient waist-lines; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to fat, sugar and salt, while salads are insufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of hog-meat arrives, it is their right, it is their duty, to present the King of Great Britain with a full rack of ribs and Kentucky barbeque sauce. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candied world.
Well I'm not going to go into detail except to point out that even with quick look at it a lot of the things that you have pointed out have been the work of people who are Christians.
In fact I'd lay certain things you mention like the lack of rights for women directly at the door of Christianity as a literal reading of the bible.
That's a very good point you make there Walter.
i'm not wanting to rain on your parade here but wtf? are you taking the piss out of the bill of rights(??) or trying to lay down an accord for a dudely community? either way i think its missed the mark.
sorry for the negative waves dude.
Just shining a little light into the darkness of our ethical conceit dude.
My service to humanity. Free of charge - but all donations gratefully received
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 02:42:10 PM
Just shining a little light into the darkness of our ethical conceit dude.
My service to humanity. Free of charge - but all donations gratefully received
It doesn't seem to resemble anything that I have seen on this board.
And I take exception at the "blacks and Muslims" things.
Black is a race, Muslim is a religion.
No one here will be criticizing black people but it is perfectly fine to criticize whatever religion you wish.
People are free to feel how they want about Guantanimo Bay but I don't think you will find much support. As I've said we don't get a lot of devout Christians.
They seem to make up the lions share of support for that sort of thing.
For many people 'muslim' denotes a social and individual identity that goes way beyond religion.
For them an attack on Islam is experienced as an attack on their self.
Over many decades westeners have grown used to the idea of religion as optional.
When people feel it to be an intrinsic part of their being, any attack on Islam is experienced in an intensly personal way.
If you fail to understand that 'muslim' is far more than simply a religious tag you will always misinterpret their responses as hysterical over-reations and in doing so miss the opportunity for a healing dialogue.
You're kidding, right? Healing dialogue with an Islamic zealot?
Anyone who labels themselves with an optional religious "tag" is not truly religious; Muslims are perfect examples of people who believe in their faith lock stock and barrel. Misdirected, yes, compromising, no.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 03:53:54 PM
For many people 'muslim' denotes a social and individual identity that goes way beyond religion.
For them an attack on Islam is experienced as an attack on their self.
Over many decades westeners have grown used to the idea of religion as optional.
When people feel it to be an intrinsic part of their being, any attack on Islam is experienced in an intensly personal way.
If you fail to understand that 'muslim' is far more than simply a religious tag you will always misinterpret their responses as hysterical over-reations and in doing so miss the opportunity for a healing dialogue.
Your metric suggests that the more committed a person is to a belief the less the belief should be criticized.
I think in this case it is clearly the opposite. People who are so committed that they kill people who don't agree .... I mean cmon.
Suppose they escalate further and set off a nuclear device in NYC.
Should that insulate them even further.
Quote from: Hominid on September 24, 2012, 04:01:57 PM
You're kidding, right? Healing dialogue with an Islamic zealot?
Sure dude. My guru puts it like this:
We basically have three ways of relating to people: love, hate or leave.
I find that I'm happiest when I find a way to love. I'm not saying that people always make it easy.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 06:15:28 AM
Quote from: Hominid on September 24, 2012, 04:01:57 PM
You're kidding, right? Healing dialogue with an Islamic zealot?
Sure dude. My guru puts it like this:
We basically have three ways of relating to people: love, hate or leave.
I find that I'm happiest when I find a way to love. I'm not saying that people always make it easy.
Well, to say that there are only those three choices will work for some situations, but not all. Like the mugger jacked up on meth with a knife to your wife's throat. Or the nation with a nuke pointed at your home, finger over trigger. Answering aggression with aggression is sometimes the only option if you want to remain topside. That's the ugly truth. And you know what? You can indeed do it with an attitude of love. Tough love it may be, but it's still love.
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 07:31:31 AM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 06:15:28 AM
Quote from: Hominid on September 24, 2012, 04:01:57 PM
You're kidding, right? Healing dialogue with an Islamic zealot?
Sure dude. My guru puts it like this:
We basically have three ways of relating to people: love, hate or leave.
I find that I'm happiest when I find a way to love. I'm not saying that people always make it easy.
Well, to say that there are only those three choices will work for some situations, but not all. Like the mugger jacked up on meth with a knife to your wife's throat. Or the nation with a nuke pointed at your home, finger over trigger. Answering aggression with aggression is sometimes the only option if you want to remain topside. That's the ugly truth. And you know what? You can indeed do it with an attitude of love. Tough love it may be, but it's still love.
Hey dude, I'm not sure I'd want to make any sudden moves on that mugger. Could be a big mistake.
Give him the Rolex and walk away.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 08:34:10 AM
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 07:31:31 AM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 06:15:28 AM
Quote from: Hominid on September 24, 2012, 04:01:57 PM
You're kidding, right? Healing dialogue with an Islamic zealot?
Sure dude. My guru puts it like this:
We basically have three ways of relating to people: love, hate or leave.
I find that I'm happiest when I find a way to love. I'm not saying that people always make it easy.
Well, to say that there are only those three choices will work for some situations, but not all. Like the mugger jacked up on meth with a knife to your wife's throat. Or the nation with a nuke pointed at your home, finger over trigger. Answering aggression with aggression is sometimes the only option if you want to remain topside. That's the ugly truth. And you know what? You can indeed do it with an attitude of love. Tough love it may be, but it's still love.
Hey dude, I'm not sure I'd want to make any sudden moves on that mugger. Could be a big mistake.
Give him the Rolex and walk away.
You miss my point. I'm painting a "him or you" scenario. The less aggressive you are, the deeper the knife plunges into your wife's neck.
Uncle Sam answered aggression with aggression in Afganistan and Iraq. Britain tried using the SAS against the IRA in Northern Ireland. In the end it's negotiation that sorts things out. Not walking around sayin 'I'll put a whuppin on yer boy, I'll pop yer eyeballs out and kick yer neck off."
We see revenge working so often in films we think it should work in real life. It doesn't.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 10:19:48 AM
Uncle Sam answered aggression with aggression in Afganistan and Iraq. Britain tried using the SAS against the IRA in Northern Ireland. In the end it's negotiation that sorts things out. Not walking around sayin 'I'll put a whuppin on yer boy, I'll pop yer eyeballs out and kick yer neck off."
We see revenge working so often in films we think it should work in real life. It doesn't.
*Sigh*. You still miss my import. I'm not talking about revenge; I'm talking about necessary force, where it's either his life or yours (or your loved one). Whether personally of nationally, diplomacy and negotiation should be the first choice. When that fails and the knife just broke the skin on your wife's neck, if you DON'T move with certain force and prejudice, you're then a coward.
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 10:39:22 AM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 10:19:48 AM
Uncle Sam answered aggression with aggression in Afganistan and Iraq. Britain tried using the SAS against the IRA in Northern Ireland. In the end it's negotiation that sorts things out. Not walking around sayin 'I'll put a whuppin on yer boy, I'll pop yer eyeballs out and kick yer neck off."
We see revenge working so often in films we think it should work in real life. It doesn't.
*Sigh*. You still miss my import. I'm not talking about revenge; I'm talking about necessary force, where it's either his life or yours (or your loved one). Whether personally of nationally, diplomacy and negotiation should be the first choice. When that fails and the knife just broke the skin on your wife's neck, if you DON'T move with certain force and prejudice, you're then a coward.
Sorry I missed your import dude. I thought the knife attack scenario was being used to illustrate why one can't have a dialogue with religious zealots. If we are literally just talking about somebody trying to kill my wife I'd go with the conventional view that it is reasonable to use proportionate force to prevent them. Just not sure that takes us anywhere useful. Once we get the knife attack nutter locked up we're still going to have to talk with the Taliban about a long-term solution for Afghanistan.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 11:53:49 AM
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 10:39:22 AM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 10:19:48 AM
Uncle Sam answered aggression with aggression in Afganistan and Iraq. Britain tried using the SAS against the IRA in Northern Ireland. In the end it's negotiation that sorts things out. Not walking around sayin 'I'll put a whuppin on yer boy, I'll pop yer eyeballs out and kick yer neck off."
We see revenge working so often in films we think it should work in real life. It doesn't.
*Sigh*. You still miss my import. I'm not talking about revenge; I'm talking about necessary force, where it's either his life or yours (or your loved one). Whether personally of nationally, diplomacy and negotiation should be the first choice. When that fails and the knife just broke the skin on your wife's neck, if you DON'T move with certain force and prejudice, you're then a coward.
Sorry I missed your import dude. I thought the knife attack scenario was being used to illustrate why one can't have a dialogue with religious zealots. If we are literally just talking about somebody trying to kill my wife I'd go with the conventional view that it is reasonable to use proportionate force to prevent them. Just not sure that takes us anywhere useful. Once we get the knife attack nutter locked up we're still going to have to talk with the Taliban about a long-term solution for Afghanistan.
But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Even if it is offensive to some?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.
And I'd point out that reading the several Fatwa's and the "Letter to America" Muslims don't hesitate to offend. But they require that others not offend them or they will take to the streets and kill someone that had nothing to do with it.
The right of offend is the ESSENCE of free speech.
the only reason why we need something like that written into the constitution is to protect speech that is going to piss somebody off.
If all anybody could say were things that didn't agitate and make others angry speech would not need to be protected in the first place.
Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 11:59:22 AM
But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.
It always seems that way but the domestic equivalent is my wife saying "Boston why haven't you mown the lawn"
I reply "oh yeah babe, I'll do it now".
But she can't resist saying "You should have done it a week ago. Why can't you keep to anything regularly?"
Cue an argument and the lawn not getting mown.
She wants to talk about causes but all I feel is my nose being rubbed in the shit when I've offered a solution.
Really all we need is acceptance, forgiveness and a practical solution. But hey if we watch the scene in the first episode of 'Homeland' too often where the arab terrorist makes one marine beat another to death we'll be way too upset to get on that path.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 11:59:22 AM
But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.
It always seems that way but the domestic equivalent is my wife saying "Boston why haven't you mown the lawn"
I reply "oh yeah babe, I'll do it now".
But she can't resist saying "You should have done it a week ago. Why can't you keep to anything regularly?"
Cue an argument and the lawn not getting mown.
She wants to talk about causes but all I feel is my nose being rubbed in the shit when I've offered a solution.
Really all we need is acceptance, forgiveness and a practical solution. But hey if we watch the scene in the first episode of 'Homeland' too often where the arab terrorist makes one marine beat another to death we'll be way too upset to get on that path.
I'd lay the blame at your reaction.
Your wife has made a reasonable point IMHO.
If it ends in an argument I wouldn't call censoring her opinion a positive step at all.
It seems that the forgiveness and acceptance that you require is a one way street.
Why can't you accept and forgive her honest opinion?
Your example.
Nobody is watching homeland and over reacting.
It's another instance where you trivialize other's points.
You continually do that while playing this back of forth game of requiring respect for yours.
Your way of debate is without a doubt the most intellectually disingenuous that I have ever seen. At first I did think that you were a troll. I think you genuinely can't help it.
Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 12:26:03 PM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 11:59:22 AM
But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.
It always seems that way but the domestic equivalent is my wife saying "Boston why haven't you mown the lawn"
I reply "oh yeah babe, I'll do it now".
But she can't resist saying "You should have done it a week ago. Why can't you keep to anything regularly?"
Cue an argument and the lawn not getting mown.
She wants to talk about causes but all I feel is my nose being rubbed in the shit when I've offered a solution.
Really all we need is acceptance, forgiveness and a practical solution. But hey if we watch the scene in the first episode of 'Homeland' too often where the arab terrorist makes one marine beat another to death we'll be way too upset to get on that path.
I'd lay the blame at your reaction.
Your wife has made a reasonable point IMHO.
If it ends in an argument I wouldn't call censoring her opinion a positive step at all.
It seems that the forgiveness and acceptance that you require is a one way street.
Why can't you accept and forgive her honest opinion?
Your example.
That's an excellent question. I can accept and forgive her honest opinion but the earlier that acceptance and forgiveness happen within an interaction the less likely one is to get a negative emotional reaction. It's certainly not a one-way street. If I complain that we haven't had sex for ages and she replies "okay I'll get my knickers off now" it's best if I accept, forgive and enjoy the proposed solution rather than provoking her with more critisism.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 12:37:37 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 12:26:03 PM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 12:10:40 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 11:59:22 AM
But isn't it equally important to talk honestly about what caused the attack?
Without that dialog then no course could ever be chosen that would have a hope of making a difference.
If that dialog is hampered by political correctness and an unwillingness to offend then we are not having any type of meaningful dialog.
It always seems that way but the domestic equivalent is my wife saying "Boston why haven't you mown the lawn"
I reply "oh yeah babe, I'll do it now".
But she can't resist saying "You should have done it a week ago. Why can't you keep to anything regularly?"
Cue an argument and the lawn not getting mown.
She wants to talk about causes but all I feel is my nose being rubbed in the shit when I've offered a solution.
Really all we need is acceptance, forgiveness and a practical solution. But hey if we watch the scene in the first episode of 'Homeland' too often where the arab terrorist makes one marine beat another to death we'll be way too upset to get on that path.
I'd lay the blame at your reaction.
Your wife has made a reasonable point IMHO.
If it ends in an argument I wouldn't call censoring her opinion a positive step at all.
It seems that the forgiveness and acceptance that you require is a one way street.
Why can't you accept and forgive her honest opinion?
Your example.
That's an excellent question. I can accept and forgive her honest opinion but the earlier that acceptance and forgiveness happen within an interaction the less likely one is to get a negative emotional reaction. It's certainly not a one-way street. If I complain that we haven't had sex for ages and she replies "okay I'll get my knickers off now" it's best if I accept, forgive and enjoy the proposed solution rather than provoking her with more critisism.
I agree with your wife.
Mow the lawn you fucking bum.
Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 12:54:49 PM
I agree with your wife.
Mow the lawn you fucking bum.
Hypothetical lawns are tough to mow - but the sex was good.