The Dudeism Forum

You haven't really lived till someone hates you with all their being.  This is a Facebook quote from yesterday:

Quote
"well Jim ... get to hell off facebook with your demented sick mind or I will have you knocked off of here forever ..turn yourself into a nut house and do the world a favour..you sick Fuck"

In another quote, he asked me to commit suicide.  High fives all around, wouldn't you say? 

(Sorry, some background: I insulted his Christian sensibilities by stating his god was a murderous, hate-mongering, misogynistic, ego-centric baby-killing asshole. I guess I deserved it. ;-)  )

Well if you read the bible, you are correct in stating that. Just saying. The god in the bible is very undudely. Infact he is a bit of a buzzkill.

QuoteI insulted his Christian sensibilities by stating his god was a murderous, hate-mongering, misogynistic, ego-centric baby-killing asshole. I guess I deserved it. ;-)

What did you do wrong exactly?

I fail to understand his problem!  ;)

Peace dude.

Nothing hurts more than the truth, have pity on this poor broken man.

Quote from: Hominid on April 02, 2013, 12:07:17 AM
You haven't really lived till someone hates you with all their being.  This is a Facebook quote from yesterday:

Quote
"well Jim ... get to hell off facebook with your demented sick mind or I will have you knocked off of here forever ..turn yourself into a nut house and do the world a favour..you sick Fuck"

In another quote, he asked me to commit suicide.  High fives all around, wouldn't you say? 

(Sorry, some background: I insulted his Christian sensibilities by stating his god was a murderous, hate-mongering, misogynistic, ego-centric baby-killing asshole. I guess I deserved it. ;-)  )

Vagina?  ;D

Quote from: Caesar dude on April 02, 2013, 08:08:38 AM

QuoteI insulted his Christian sensibilities by stating his god was a murderous, hate-mongering, misogynistic, ego-centric baby-killing asshole. I guess I deserved it. ;-)

What did you do wrong exactly?

I fail to understand his problem!  ;)

Peace dude.

Good to see you, C dude, hope all is well and dude-like.

I upset a lot of people on a FB psychobabble-guru page a couple of weeks ago. I compared the approach to certain techniques in tantric sex (which I detailed). The guru's name is Greg so I discussed the 'Gregist trinity' (the Greg, the inner greg and the universal greg energy). At some point I used the expression 'fucked in the ass'. It was all pretty harmless stuff and just some gently challenging questions but I got banned from the site. They changed the whole posting policy, then brought in first Mrs Greg and finally The Greg himself to 'straighten things out'. I wasn't even trying to upset anyone! But people do get really uptight when you question their faith. Personally, I don't like being hated. Of course we have a right to tell the truth and challenge people but that just gets lost anyway once someone gets upset.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 02, 2013, 02:40:46 PM...but that just gets lost anyway once someone gets upset.

Yes, and I can remember back in my own religious days being upset as well by those taking pot shots at my faith. BUT - it did serve to cast doubt.  A well-debated and logical point goes a long way... you never know who you may influence.

Quote from: Hominid on April 02, 2013, 02:46:16 PM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 02, 2013, 02:40:46 PM...but that just gets lost anyway once someone gets upset.

Yes, and I can remember back in my own religious days being upset as well by those taking pot shots at my faith. BUT - it did serve to cast doubt.  A well-debated and logical point goes a long way... you never know who you may influence.

Very true. In my case I know I have to watch out for conceit. People are entitled to believe what they want and when their beliefs annoy me I tend to push too hard and assume that I have the answers. It's easy to spot other people's inconsistencies but that isn't the same thing as understanding or wisdom, it's often  intellectual arrogance which is just a way of compensating for emotional inadequacies.

Quote from: Caesar dude on April 02, 2013, 08:08:38 AM

QuoteI insulted his Christian sensibilities by stating his god was a murderous, hate-mongering, misogynistic, ego-centric baby-killing asshole. I guess I deserved it. ;-)

What did you do wrong exactly?

I fail to understand his problem!  ;)

Peace dude.

Hey Caesar dude, glad to see you still treading the boards

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 02, 2013, 03:14:04 PM
People are entitled to believe what they want and when their beliefs annoy me I tend to push too hard and assume that I have the answers.

You might just dig this (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/Notice-of-Compulsory-Illumination.pdf), Dude. Item 4, specifically.

Quote from: RighteousDude on April 02, 2013, 04:06:29 PM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 02, 2013, 03:14:04 PM
People are entitled to believe what they want and when their beliefs annoy me I tend to push too hard and assume that I have the answers.

You might just dig this (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/Notice-of-Compulsory-Illumination.pdf), Dude. Item 4, specifically.

It's right on the money - but I keep forgetting. From now on I'm going to post under the name SelfRighteousDude just to balance out your maturity and wisdom.

Quote from: RighteousDude on April 02, 2013, 04:06:29 PM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 02, 2013, 03:14:04 PM
People are entitled to believe what they want and when their beliefs annoy me I tend to push too hard and assume that I have the answers.

You might just dig this (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/downloads/Notice-of-Compulsory-Illumination.pdf), Dude. Item 4, specifically.

Well that's wrong. It is insane to think all beliefs are created equal, that some are not destructive, that some do not lead to greater suffering than they alleviate. It is crazy to think a doctor doesn't know better what's good for a person.

I hold with Sam Harris, there is an objective morality, it can be quantified, we can know what "beliefs" are good for us and which ones are too brutal, too dogmatic to be anything but a sap on human development, at best and possibly so much worse. Beliefs that benefit all sentient beings are right beliefs, those that do not or cause suffering to sentient beings are wrong. What matters is how our beliefs effect other beings, because being experience pain and suffering, and as beings we understand that to be a less than desirable state.

And why did I get an Ayn Rand after taste from that link, yuk.

Keep the battle of ideas going, it is important to our survival, and the survival of other beings we have the ability to protect.

Ya, not to start a shit storm here, but I'm with revgms... just because something is called a "belief", it doesn't immediately qualify to be upheld and protected. That's for political correctness aficionados who want to coddle and not hurt feelings.

Quote from: revgms on April 02, 2013, 05:47:48 PM
Well that's wrong. It is insane to think all beliefs are created equal, that some are not destructive, that some do not lead to greater suffering than they alleviate. It is crazy to think a doctor doesn't know better what's good for a person.

It doesn't say that all beliefs are created equal. I do, however, say that doctors quite often have no fucking clue what's good for a person and I have loads of personal experience that bear this out. I know many others, medical herbalists, who have far more experience individually and in aggregate that bears this out.

If it were up to doctors, five of them and four being specialists, my mother-in-law would be unable to walk today because at least her feet would be missing. By now, in fact, she might be missing from mid-thigh down. They were all set to begin a course of progressive amputation designed (by them, the butcherous bastards) to save her life. (Save it from what? Them!) They and their modrun medi-kill seance were sure that this was her only hope of survival. But she is today, some six years after the first scheduled butchery, alive and well and walking around with all of her parts intact. Her longhair freak son-in-law, yours dudely, gave her some plants made into a salve.

If it were up to his cardiologist my father-in-law would be eight years dead. His essential hypertension would have done him in after he was told that there was nothing more to be done for him. He was on the highest dose of the strongest available drug, yet his blood pressure was steadily increasing and on the day he called was right around 190/140 but spiking 30 points higher sporadically. Four months later he was completely weaned off of the pharmaceuticals and maintaining an average of 120/80. His longhair freak son-in-law gave him some plants. His blood pressure last week when we talked was still 120/80, still self-regulating.

My father was sent home to die in 2007. If he'd stayed on the prescriptions he'd been given, he would have. If I had it to do over again he'd be compost, but so far as I know the narcissistic old prick is still holding down his recliner all day every day issuing illiterate racist rants at his big screen television. I check the Social Security Death Index every now and then and he's not on it yet, anyway.

There's a guy across town here who's one of the nicest guys you could ever hope to meet, always has kind words even for the worst of assholes, a very Dude kinda guy who would be on treatment for diabetes today and on that well known slowly degenerative course that leads to an early grave if it were up to our local physicians. His blood sugars are under perfect control today with no pharmaceuticals at all. I don't even know what he's up to today because he's taken control of his own life and doesn't need me any more. Yay him.

And so on. What is patently absurd is actually the belief that doctors know what is best for patients. It is demonstrably wrong, in fact. Every year, year in and year out with no trends indicating that a change is in the offing, right around 200,000 Americans die due to medical mistakes. Mistakes. Not treatment failures. Plain old did the wrong fucking thing mistakes. There are no reporting requirements for them, but it is reasonable to assume that the number of suboptimal outcomes due to mistakes is many times higher. And if one considers that cases like those I've mentioned here are perfectly common, and the bad things that I prevented would have been considered normal outcomes, it's really very difficult to have anything like faith in the modern medical services industry. In order to do it, you have to suspend rationality.

Not all science is created equally, either. Quite a lot of it is fucking us all to death even as we speak.

Quote from: revgms on April 02, 2013, 05:47:48 PM
Beliefs that benefit all sentient beings are right beliefs, those that do not or cause suffering to sentient beings are wrong.

That idea is one I hold dear, and it has been around for many centuries. There are many, though, who consider it logically and morally wrong. While most thinking, feeling human beings can agree to that principle on the face of it, in practice most of them are opposed. All ya gotta do it tell 'em what they'd have to give up in the short term only to live in accordance with that principle and they lose their taste for it right quick.

Quote from: revgms on April 02, 2013, 05:47:48 PM
And why did I get an Ayn Rand after taste from that link, yuk.

I have no idea. Point 3 is at odds with that cunt's psychopathic ideology. Discordianism, in general, is in opposition to that cunt's psychopathic ideology.

The point I was hoping to make is that there's nothing to be gained by directly challenging those absurd things that most people believe. Your intent might be the betterment of life for all living beings and even the individual before you, your logic might be airtight, your facts concrete and proven, but directly assailing those beliefs serves only to redouble the commitment of the deluded cabbages to their absurd beliefs. You can only delay and might unwittingly work to prevent any eventual betterment of conditions by speaking directly to the fact of the absurdity.

Suppose you're one who just cannot dig the fact that modern medical science is woefully inadequate, often inferior to other known and proven treatments, and quite often dangerous, as I've stated above. You'll read those words of mine, and without even having first consciously formed the intention of doing so your mind will start collating those things you have accepted as factual into what you can believe is a coherent argument against my position. It's a primal defense mechanism, and one that very few people can overcome by force of will. Most have no desire to overcome it, and the ability to do so is quite rare. Most who have that ability won't use it unless and until they come face to face with an immediate crisis that cannot be resolved within the framework of their beliefs. Usually, it must be a rapidly unfolding, horrific crisis that shocks the mind beyond its ability for comprehension.

Lacking a shock of that magnitude, we each carry around a primal defense mechanism that seeks to preserve the sanctity of our boneheaded beliefs. We humans are not physically endowed with great survival tools -- we are tasty, weak, and slow. Opposable thumbs are handy, but our greatest advantage is our intelligence. We can outsmart most anything, even the weather. Usually. It's what we perceive and how we perceive it, how we assess it, and how we react to it that are the keys to our survival as individuals and as a species. That's it. If we fail to perceive or perceive inaccurately and/or assess incorrectly, we act or react wrongly and we're lunch. So when you tell some guy that his thinking is fucked up, he feels threatened at a deep, primal level. If his thinking is fucked up, his survival is less assured. He cannot have that! So all kinds of shit happens in his head, and oh by the way fuck you. Threaten me like that again I'm gonna bash in your skull with a rock.

So if you want to change things, don't directly assail the beliefs. Crab up on 'em, sneak some information in a little at time and allow time for relaxed digestion.

Quote from: Hominid on April 02, 2013, 06:32:46 PM
Ya, not to start a shit storm here, but I'm with revgms... just because something is called a "belief", it doesn't immediately qualify to be upheld and protected.

With abiding respect for both of you Dudes, revgms misunderstood and so mischaracterized the whole thing. Discordianism and Dudeism are like branches of the same fish, man.

If you read over the referenced document, you might find that while it expresses some pretty righteous ideas, it also recursively cancels itself. You agree not to let others do your thinking for you. Well, fuck, man, doesn't that mean that I agree not to let some piece of paper hanging on the wall of my office tell me what to think? Why hell yes it does! Discordians do that kind of shit all the time. A fitting example is the Pentabarf (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/11.php). After laying out in writing four things that Discordians must believe and do, it says that a Discordian is prohibited from believing what he reads.

It's all good, or all bad, or all pretty much the same anyway, man. We all believe shit. We all believe some pretty absurd shit, too. I mean, ya know, we who are Dudes do not believe absurd shit, but all those other motherfuckers? Bat shit crazy, most of 'em, to believe that really absurd shit they do.

8)

I was thinking exactly along the same lines as RD when I read the 'doctors know what's best for you comment'. I remember some creepy doctor putting his hand up my wife on the pretext of checking her pregnancy and I just intuitively knew he was doing it for his own weird thrill. Later on my wife told me that she felt like she'd been abused by him. I worked at the same practice at the time and saw so many shit medical decisions it wasn't true. For the majority of non-surgical medical treatments you are far better off with herbal medicine. Acupuncture can be good too. Homeopathy probably useless but can be a superbly crafted placebo in skilled hands.

Point one- doctors

That is all anecdotal evidence, I was not referring to individual Drs., single fallible humans, but modern medicine in its entire scope. Vaccines verses voodoo dolls, which cured polio? Who you going to listen to, big tobacco or the surgeon general, when it comes to the health of your lungs? We no longer die at 24 from an infected scratch, our wives and children actually survive childbirth instead of the crap shoot it used to be. We no longer have to have 5 children in the hopes that two will live long enough to help out on the farm. Those doctors are what I am referring to, particularly in contrast to all the superstition that proceeded modern medicine and still seeks to derail it. But, remain skillful and aware, so you may catch any mistakes modern medicine may make, nothing is perfect, and to cling to modern medicine blindly is almost as bad as clinging to superstition.


Agreed, humans are near sighted.

Rand-
The absolutist statement for #7 "You hereby deauthorize and denounce any notion you have until now espoused which furthers in your mind the idea that the State is your Protector, because it is, in all
truth, the opposite".

Further, You beat me to my "that said" addition to my post. One has to be skillful, pick the right battles, you don't destroy the old lady's comfort to score atheist points, but when you sit across from a Michele Bachmann or Pat Robertson, have at it, full on intellectual warfare. We must engage the Ray Comforts and Popes of this world.

We can never know the truth of reality, we can however know the truth of OUR reality, we are always left with the brain in a vat hypothesis. But like the man said, even though the affliction is illusory and the cure is illusory, we still feel the suffering. That's what we have to deal with, not theorizing what might be on higher or lower or lateral levels of reality, the suffering that we face now is what matters.

Nothing is perfect, everything comes with a hidden mistake, the trick is to get the most benefits while committing the fewest mistakes. Or choosing the most acceptable mistake.

But the idea that you should accept some beliefs because to confront them is going to upset some individuals is still wrong. Surely MAMBLA, genital mutilation and burning witches are wrong beliefs, dangerous and destructive beliefs that cause unacceptable suffering. Beliefs such as those need to be exorcised from humanity.

Modern medicine can't take credit for the increase in life expentancy that is largely a result of better sanitation, public hygeine and what have you. You dismiss what I say on the basis that it is anecdotal and then go on to make numerous claims without a single reference to any evidence that supports your statements!

Not eveything that proceeded 'modern medicine' (as we think of it today) was superstitious. Modern medicine started at least as far back as 400BC with Hippocrates, when there were no allopathic drugs, only herbs.

Quote from: revgms on April 03, 2013, 09:56:54 AM
Vaccines verses voodoo dolls, which cured polio?

Is there room on the wall for another plaque? Such a stroke of literary genius truly does deserve to be immortalized. While I do wholeheartedly disagree with the point you're trying to make and the intellectual dishonesty employed in the attempt to make it, it is pure fucking genius to select, of all things, voodoo as a straw man argument. Voodoo... straw man... this old duder's head is bowed to you, man. I wish I'd thought of it first. I'd gladly publicly embarrass myself to pull something like that off. Fucking brilliant.

I didn't say shit about voodoo, or faith healing, or homeopathy, or the magical healing powers of magnetic fields and crystal vibrations. I never said shit about tobacco being good for you. Those are things I would not say, ever, to anyone. Thus, straw man. I'm really not into that "full on intellectual warfare" thing, but I know enough to observe that you're not very good at it. Don't use straw men if you want to be taken at all seriously by anyone who could pass the eighth grade without studying.

The point I was striving to explicitly make in that stretch of my response was this: When you directly assail someone's beliefs, absurd or not, you (perhaps unwittingly) strike a deep, primal chord that reflexively triggers a strong defense response. You get nowhere by it. I offer as evidence, sir, your strong rebuttal. Your own deep and primal chord was struck (though not unwittingly), and you defended your absurd belief with a fusillade of nonsense. First the straw men, then an untruth that is trivially easy to expose: People do in fact die of "an infected scratch", or at any rate relatively minor and otherwise easily treated, survivable wounds, scratches included. The modern medical establishment, reporting to itself, about itself, is quite open about the fact that hospital acquired infections by drug-resistant agents are a very serious and growing problem. It's been in the mainstream news, there are scads of articles about it on PubMed, the CDC web site, and so on. Contrary to your assertion, what immediately preceded modern medicine was absolutely not superstition. It was plant based medicine, and it is nowhere near obsolete -- as evidenced by the 1.3 billion Chinese who rely upon it as their primary treatment of disease. Primary, not only. They also avail themselves of the shit that we use in the western world, as do I, when it is warranted. It's just not so often warranted as we might believe it to be.

The referenced document, where it speaks to beliefs, says: "your beliefs are not inherently more valuable than other". Inherently. Inherently. Fucking inherently, man. Meaning, essentially, in that context, that your beliefs are not superior just because they're in your head. That was why I chose that particular document to expose to the fine and enlightened mind of our friend and fellow Dude, Boston Rockbury. He broached the subject, and being a feeling human being I thought, "Dude, I'll bet BR would like to see this". Then for whatever reason the septic tank exploded. What the fuck.

That whole Randian thing you're on about: Item 7 might have a Randian ring to it, but the statement is evidently true. Fuck theoretical, ideological bullshit about how reality ain't gotta be as fucked up as it is. All I have to do to become sickeningly reminded that the State is openly hostile to the best interests of the people is to go to the end of my street, turn right, and drive about 40 miles. When I do that, as I sometimes do out of necessity, I land right smack in the middle of one of the scenes from the documentary Gasland. It's my neighbors who are getting fucked because the oil and gas industry has been exempted from every meaningful environmental regulation of the last four decades. It's my neighbors who the industry and the government are fully intentionally fucking. It's my neighbors who have no recourse, at all, because the federal government made that fucking legal on purpose. They knew people's lives would be destroyed, their health ruined, their life savings depleted by huge medical bills, their property made worthless, their loved ones killed. This is not the first or only example that proves, beyond any doubt, that the State is hostile to the interests of the people and has always been so. It's just the one I chose this morning. The war for oil is now being fought in America, by Americans, against Americans. The State is NOT protecting them. It's on the other fucking side.

'Nuff sed. I don't do "full on intellectual warfare". I'm not trying to win anything. I'm not expecting to change your mind in the least. I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I did, I admit, try to trigger your primal defense response to make my point, and succeeded, but only for the purpose of the discussion. My own little piece of the world and my place in it are pretty darn pleasant, so it's of no concern at all to me what others think. I started out trying to be helpful, and I'm ending up trying to be helpful. Take 'er easy, Dude.

[edit: where the fuck that that strikethrough come from?!?!]

Quote from: RighteousDude on April 03, 2013, 12:58:50 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 03, 2013, 09:56:54 AM
Vaccines verses voodoo dolls, which cured polio?

I thought, "Dude, I'll bet BR would like to see this". Then for whatever reason the septic tank exploded. What the fuck.

Sorry man that was partly my fault. I was trying to be clever again - it's a disease!
"My name's Boston and I'm an arrogant prick. I have been clean for four hours."
"Welcome back to the group Boston. Would you like to share?"
"I'd like to share my intellectual brilliance, would that be okay?"
"Right that's enough, get out Boston you're banned!"
"Shit, did it again!"

Well I would attribute sanitation and hygiene to aspects of modern medicine, as they pertain to disease and how to prevent it. I would also argue that modern medicine is not exclusively a product of modern times, it has appeared and faded many times over the millennia. It is an understanding, a philosophy, so we have glimmers of modern medical thinking as far back as 4000 years, still the same philosophy.

'kay, I bring the sauce (used to call citation sources sauce as a funny play on words back at the Colbert Nation)


http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1260.full (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1260.full)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/age-specific-mortality-lifespan-bad-science-2009.html (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/age-specific-mortality-lifespan-bad-science-2009.html)

Do I need to cite that voodoo does not cure polio, or that smoking causes health problems, or that life sucked before antibiotics? The rest of my claims are more along the epistemology lines, so we are not going to settle this part of our arguments, if we did we'd get a Nobel Prize for doing what all the philosophers before us could not.

This is all wildly off topic, whether or not engaging the beliefs of others is 'right' or important, and I maintain that it is. The fact is we humans have never had it so good, this is the most peaceful, prosperous and healthy era in the whole of human history, we live longer, healthier more peaceful lives because we have abandoned wrong beliefs. It is true that some wrong beliefs have served us well in the past, and some still do have positive aspects today, the trick is knowing when their usefulness has waned and it is time to leave them behind.

QuoteThe fact is we humans have never had it so good, this is the most peaceful, prosperous and healthy era in the whole of human history, we live longer, healthier more peaceful lives because we have abandoned wrong beliefs.

I don't know if it's the media, but it seems we're taking some steps backwards, as the European and Western worlds lose grasp on the economic prowess they once had, and therefore societal influence. The point being that the middle east and China are rising super-powers, and their backwards religions and politics are slapping us in the face everywhere...

Quote from: revgms on April 03, 2013, 02:19:13 PM
Well I would attribute sanitation and hygiene to aspects of modern medicine, as they pertain to disease and how to prevent it. I would also argue that modern medicine is not exclusively a product of modern times, it has appeared and faded many times over the millennia. It is an understanding, a philosophy, so we have glimmers of modern medical thinking as far back as 4000 years, still the same philosophy.

'kay, I bring the sauce (used to call citation sources sauce as a funny play on words back at the Colbert Nation)


http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1260.full (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1260.full)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html)
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/age-specific-mortality-lifespan-bad-science-2009.html (http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/age-specific-mortality-lifespan-bad-science-2009.html)

Do I need to cite that voodoo does not cure polio, or that smoking causes health problems, or that life sucked before antibiotics? The rest of my claims are more along the epistemology lines, so we are not going to settle this part of our arguments, if we did we'd get a Nobel Prize for doing what all the philosophers before us could not.

This is all wildly off topic, whether or not engaging the beliefs of others is 'right' or important, and I maintain that it is. The fact is we humans have never had it so good, this is the most peaceful, prosperous and healthy era in the whole of human history, we live longer, healthier more peaceful lives because we have abandoned wrong beliefs. It is true that some wrong beliefs have served us well in the past, and some still do have positive aspects today, the trick is knowing when their usefulness has waned and it is time to leave them behind.

Plenty of room here for lots of different opinions. I ain't gonna argue.

Nope not unwittingly, the more you perturb some one the more they will resort to the ridiculous to defend their position, then they have to face the words that actually come out of their mouth. Push them til the crazy comes out so loud and clear that they can not ignore it any longer. If that fails you have at least exposed them and their wrong beliefs.

We should not make the mistake of letting humanity's potential to be squandered because we may not reach a few individuals or we may harm their delicate sensibilities. We should continue to make the mistake of hurting a few feelings while promoting reason and human evolution. Like said before, pick your battles, the point to arguing against a Fred Phelps or Ken Ham is not to change their minds, it is to upset them, to make them keep talking so others can hear what is really rattling around in their heads. "that which dwells in darkness, perishes in the light"

But this is not to imply one should tell a grieving person that their loved one is not in heaven, not at that time or place man, be more skillful.

Besides, I seem to be outclassed, I bow to the person who can take a tiny scarecrow in a giant field and spin it into a rather large and pointed ad hominem attack. This is where I would like to point out that I am talking in the abstract here, not particularly aimed at any individual, just challenging ideas here folks.

Quote from: Hominid on April 03, 2013, 02:27:44 PM

QuoteThe fact is we humans have never had it so good, this is the most peaceful, prosperous and healthy era in the whole of human history, we live longer, healthier more peaceful lives because we have abandoned wrong beliefs.

I don't know if it's the media, but it seems we're taking some steps backwards, as the European and Western worlds lose grasp on the economic prowess they once had, and therefore societal influence. The point being that the middle east and China are rising super-powers, and their backwards religions and politics are slapping us in the face everywhere...

And we are moving forward on gay marriage, ending cannabis prohibition and more people are aware of the negative impact private prisons are having. It's the media dude, they are in the business of selling, and ugly, sexy and voyeuristic sell better than "shit's not too bad folks".

Yeah there are still problems, gun violence is disturbing, but it is also true it is receding, and fewer and fewer people keep guns, this is the most crime free we have ever been especially in regards to violent crime. It is just not a straight line, things are getting better and worse simultaneously all the time. The media just makes more money from talking about how bad it is, that is Fox News' business model right there.

Quote from: revgms on April 03, 2013, 03:14:41 PM

Quote from: Hominid on April 03, 2013, 02:27:44 PM

QuoteThe fact is we humans have never had it so good, this is the most peaceful, prosperous and healthy era in the whole of human history, we live longer, healthier more peaceful lives because we have abandoned wrong beliefs.

I don't know if it's the media, but it seems we're taking some steps backwards, as the European and Western worlds lose grasp on the economic prowess they once had, and therefore societal influence. The point being that the middle east and China are rising super-powers, and their backwards religions and politics are slapping us in the face everywhere...

And we are moving forward on gay marriage, ending cannabis prohibition and more people are aware of the negative impact private prisons are having. It's the media dude, they are in the business of selling, and ugly, sexy and voyeuristic sell better than "shit's not too bad folks".

Yeah there are still problems, gun violence is disturbing, but it is also true it is receding, and fewer and fewer people keep guns, this is the most crime free we have ever been especially in regards to violent crime. It is just not a straight line, things are getting better and worse simultaneously all the time. The media just makes more money from talking about how bad it is, that is Fox News' business model right there.

Yes, but.........

Slavery By Consent: Understanding The Human Farm - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HiSBneEGN4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HiSBneEGN4)

Hey DB, what's the gist of the movie?  It's kinda long!

Hey Righteous Dude, tone it down man. You claim not to do full intellectual warfare, but when challenged a bit you break out the Uzi. Rev GMS didn't come out swinging. He just made a valid point, and rather politely.

I rarely step in to police things here but personally I see a growing tendency for Dudes here to get arrogant and aggressive and dogmatic about their beliefs. I don't want this forum to go the way of other forums. One of the great things about it is that people here are generally able to argue without resorting to personal attacks or over the top sarcasm. Nothing wrong with a little sarcasm. Just don't go over the line.

Okay, Pubic Service Announcement over.

My own two cents on the debate (two baht, actually, since I'm in Thailand):

I've lived in the States for half my life, and abroad for the other half (mostly in Asia, but considered moving to Spain after spending a year there). What I see in the US when it comes to health seems to me to be the product of lifestyle choices. People eat too goddamn much and generally get most of their happiness from consumption. Restaurants are recreation. The solution is always more consumption, so it makes sense to consume pills to fight the problems. Everything is about filling filling filling. Fill belly with food, fill house with stuff, fill mind with passive entertainments, fill veins with medicine. Everyone is afraid of emptiness, space, quietude, vacations (Americans don't take them). I agree that Western Medicine today is more about treating symptoms of a much greater psychosomatic problem - the inability to live in a way that makes you feel good naturally, at baseline, not propped up by external additives.

My expat friends here are all in remarkably good health - and most of them are in their 60s. They don't take any medicines (one friend can't kick nicotine gum though). Most don't have health insurance. I don't know what it is. Most people I know in the States have chronic this and that and whether they treat it with alternative meds or allopathic meds, they never really overcome it. And of course the Thais seem far healthier as well. You don't see any old fat Thais on a mobility scooter. They're riding motorcycles and bicycles and bartering hard in markets well into their 80s. I have no data to support anything in this paragraph but that's my impression.

Let's not be disingenuous about Western medicine. There's an avalanche of data to suggest that western medicine (vaccination, antibiotics, epidemiology, sanitation) has given us longer lifespans. But I agree that the current state of pharmaceutical overprescribing is a huge problem and probably does more harm than good. But that's a completely different issue. 

I see the US in time lapse photography and so I notice changes more acutely than most. The commercials for prescription drugs have multiplied like crazy over the last 20 years. It's a horror show. Not to mention that all commercials have eaten into our psychic health, which I secretly suspect are at the root of all our medical problems (well, part anyway). Remember when you could go see a movie and the only ads were for coming attractions? In the Netherlands there are only 10 minutes of commercials an hour on TV. In the states it's more than double that. I can't read Thai so I'm immune to them here. Thank Buddha.

Quote from: forumdude on April 03, 2013, 11:30:20 PM
My own two cents on the debate (two baht, actually, since I'm in Thailand):

I've lived in the States for half my life, and abroad for the other half (mostly in Asia, but considered moving to Spain after spending a year there). What I see in the US when it comes to health seems to me to be the product of lifestyle choices. People eat too goddamn much and generally get most of their happiness from consumption. Restaurants are recreation. The solution is always more consumption, so it makes sense to consume pills to fight the problems. Everything is about filling filling filling. Fill belly with food, fill house with stuff, fill mind with passive entertainments, fill veins with medicine. Everyone is afraid of emptiness, space, quietude, vacations (Americans don't take them). I agree that Western Medicine today is more about treating symptoms of a much greater psychosomatic problem - the inability to live in a way that makes you feel good naturally, at baseline, not propped up by external additives.

My expat friends here are all in remarkably good health - and most of them are in their 60s. They don't take any medicines (one friend can't kick nicotine gum though). Most don't have health insurance. I don't know what it is. Most people I know in the States have chronic this and that and whether they treat it with alternative meds or allopathic meds, they never really overcome it. And of course the Thais seem far healthier as well. You don't see any old fat Thais on a mobility scooter. They're riding motorcycles and bicycles and bartering hard in markets well into their 80s. I have no data to support anything in this paragraph but that's my impression.

Let's not be disingenuous about Western medicine. There's an avalanche of data to suggest that western medicine (vaccination, antibiotics, epidemiology, sanitation) has given us longer lifespans. But I agree that the current state of pharmaceutical overprescribing is a huge problem and probably does more harm than good. But that's a completely different issue. 

I see the US in time lapse photography and so I notice changes more acutely than most. The commercials for prescription drugs have multiplied like crazy over the last 20 years. It's a horror show. Not to mention that all commercials have eaten into our psychic health, which I secretly suspect are at the root of all our medical problems (well, part anyway). Remember when you could go see a movie and the only ads were for coming attractions? In the Netherlands there are only 10 minutes of commercials an hour on TV. In the states it's more than double that. I can't read Thai so I'm immune to them here. Thank Buddha.

RE: "People eat too goddamn much and generally get most of their happiness from consumption. Restaurants are recreation."

Dude, that is for damn sure!! Fuckin' eh!

Quote from: forumdude on April 03, 2013, 10:54:47 PM
Hey Righteous Dude, tone it down man. You claim not to do full intellectual warfare, but when challenged a bit you break out the Uzi. Rev GMS didn't come out swinging. He just made a valid point, and rather politely.

I rarely step in to police things here but personally I see a growing tendency for Dudes here to get arrogant and aggressive and dogmatic about their beliefs. I don't want this forum to go the way of other forums. One of the great things about it is that people here are generally able to argue without resorting to personal attacks or over the top sarcasm. Nothing wrong with a little sarcasm. Just don't go over the line.

Okay, Pubic Service Announcement over.

I think this is relevant to the begining of the thread, we tend to turn up the volume when things that are important to us feel like they are being attacked. When it's someone else's religion, gun-law, lifestyle etc' we think 'why are they getting so uptight?' Then when someone tells me herbal medicine is 'superstitious' or what have you I can get really heated. RD is a true dude. I'm certain this is all that happened - hit a bit of a nerve.

I've noticed that dudes are amazing when a fellow dude is in trouble. We rally to that person's assistance without reservation. It's inspiring and heart-warming. I believe this says a lot more about Dudeism and the people on this forum than any passing squall.

Also, it's a bit hard to know if someone is being jokey or serious. Some of righteous dude's ripostes to Rev GMS sounded a bit venomous, but then maybe that's just how I read it. He definitely pulled back a bit at the end.

It's a fine line, sarcasm and humor. I confess to not always knowing where the line is. I think those lame emoticons help. Maybe some dude emoticons might be more fun:

The grinning Dude emoticon when you're trying to be ironic:

{B-D>

or the smiling dude

{B-)>

or the Dude sticking his tongue out sideways:

{B-P>

Quote from: forumdude on April 03, 2013, 10:54:47 PM
Hey Righteous Dude, tone it down man.

Consider the tone downed. My intent was to illustrate how and why it's a bad idea to directly assail someone's beliefs, not to come across as an asshole.

Quote from: forumdude on April 03, 2013, 10:54:47 PM
I see a growing tendency for Dudes here to get arrogant and aggressive and dogmatic about their beliefs.

That was the point I was trying to make... Looks like I blew it. Or overachieved. Either way...

My apologies to the assembled Dudes.

Internets are serious business! LOL

For my part no apologies necessary, and maybe I came across too forceful as well, been known to be the case. I gotta say tho, this is the derned friendliest forum for having a lively debate. I could tell some stories man, I seen some shit out there, epic battles and scorched Earth flame wars. Yeah man I love lively discourse, I just don't view my adversaries as enemies, but rather as co-authors in this derned human comedy.

RD Dude, you are no asshole, challenging and colorful, yes, asshole, naw.

So, now that we are done proving this aint 9gag, and the touchy feely crap is outta the way, shall we continue? ;)

Dudes,

What makes a Dude, Mr. Lebowski?  You all have once again shown how a dudeist approach to life promotes harmony - inside and out.  Great stuff, man, arguing one side then the other, then gettin in bed with everyone.  Far fucking out, man.

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 08:08:41 AM
Internets are serious business! LOL

For my part no apologies necessary, and maybe I came across too forceful as well, been known to be the case. I gotta say tho, this is the derned friendliest forum for having a lively debate. I could tell some stories man, I seen some shit out there, epic battles and scorched Earth flame wars. Yeah man I love lively discourse, I just don't view my adversaries as enemies, but rather as co-authors in this derned human comedy.

RD Dude, you are no asshole, challenging and colorful, yes, asshole, naw.

So, now that we are done proving this aint 9gag, and the touchy feely crap is outta the way, shall we continue? ;)

This is indeed a very unique forum in that way.  Gotta say, there's some smart dudes here...

QuoteGreat stuff, man, arguing one side then the other, then gettin in bed with everyone.  Far fucking out, man.

Ya, make-up sex is great! 

Quote from: forumdude on April 03, 2013, 11:30:20 PM
What I see in the US when it comes to health seems to me to be the product of lifestyle choices. People eat too goddamn much and generally get most of their happiness from consumption. Restaurants are recreation. The solution is always more consumption, so it makes sense to consume pills to fight the problems. Everything is about filling filling filling. Fill belly with food, fill house with stuff, fill mind with passive entertainments, fill veins with medicine.

My take on it, if I might be indulged for taking a circuitous route to the point:

When my youngest was in high school and the topic came up, we played a game that I thunk up in a rare moment of mental clarity. Find The Fat Kid. I took up her yearbook, and she took up mine. My high school had about 800 students in it, hers fewer than 80. I gave her a four page head start. Obviously, the game was rigged in my favor.

In the 70's we had sugary drinks, fast food, television, and so on. Many of us left campus to hit a fast food joint for lunch every day. Many of us met up at a donut shop or restaurant before the school day started. All of us either had our own cars or hung around with someone else who did, and it was well known that a driver's license would put five pounds to you. But we were not fat. We had just a few fat kids in our entire 800+ student high school: one in a wheelchair, a couple with metabolic disorders, and a couple or three more with emotional hangups. That was it. Something has changed, but it's not the stuff the media is talking about. We were cola guzzling, fast food consuming, television watching slugs, too.

Maybe it was Led Zeppelin kept us thin? Hmmm...

I see a couple of things going on, and both are taboo topics in our corporatized culture. One is that the quality of our food supply has gone to shit. Whereas it was energy dense in the 1970's, it is nutrient poor and energy dense today. Human bodies as they are wired don't regulate against body fat. They regulate for nutrients. So, for example, when your electrolytes are running low you crave salt. Rip the nutrients out of the food supply, and all of those human bodies out there go into feast mode, craving this and craving that because they're not getting the things they need. The extra carbs and fats? WTF, we'll just store that energy for later. When your body thinks you're starving, it regulates for body fat. The fat is not only raw energy, it is used to store the fat-soluble nutrients (and water). Unfortunately, it also stores fat-soluble toxins but that's another matter.

The second thing, which is just obvious as balls on a tall dog to people who have experienced American culture and just about any other where obesity is not epidemic: We are isolated and transient, with no real culture, no real community, no deep and lasting bonds to anyone or anything at all. And we know it, and we try to pretend it does not matter or even that it is a superior model for living. But we feel the impermanence and isolation and we quite rightly feel terribly insecure. Our jobs can be snatched away from us without notice even though we serve in an exemplary manner. Our acquaintances who rarely cross that vital threshold to become true friends come and go as careers dictate. Our neighborhood is an ever-changing cast of characters. Our work environments reduce us to the level of machinery, only slightly more evolved than the programmable metal and plastic bits ,and dispensable once the capability of the machines catches up. We are not allowed in the work environment to express our humanity, must instead go along with the prescribed corporate culture, and always strive to produce more, faster, with less. Our employers even monitor our off-duty behavior, and if we get caught expressing ourselves outside of the prescribed boundaries our barely comfortable enough lifestyles are taken away. These days you can be denied an opportunity for employment for no reason other than having said the wrong thing years beforehand.

What most people have in common with their co-workers, the people they see more than anyone else, is that they're all being driven like rented mules and they watch the same shit on television. "Did you see [blank] last night?". That's telling. These are people whose shared experience isn't even their own. The experiences they share are the fictional, scripted representations of other lives presented to them in two dimensions as they sit, still isolated, on their respective sofas. The bits that don't appear to be scripted come by way of "the news", which is designed to tell people what their opinions will be. And it works amazingly well. Among the opinions that Americans have been force fed for the past 30 years or so: We are threatened by invisible enemies who want to destroy us. First it was the damned dirty commies of the USSR, then it was the damned dirty terrorists. (Apparently, living in proximity to fossil fuel resources causes murderous intent.)

It's probably fairly obvious to the assembled fine and enlightened Dudes here that there are no terrorists in this century just as there was no real Soviet threat in the last century, but to those who think in uptight, fucked up manners as the television tells them to think, that shit seems real. They really are afraid that some impoverished dude in some far away land is going to bumble his way into a nuclear weapon and miracle that sumbitch across the ocean to blow up an American city.

So we are isolated and afraid, and we self medicate. Food. Booze. Pharmaceuticals. Television. Video games. Pornography. Anything, anything at all that will numb the emotions, quell the fear, get us through this fucked up day. Anything that will make money for the corporations who sell us that shit.

To close the circle on this here thread where my intent was, I think, misinterpreted: Another thing we do in our stressed out fucked up non-culture in a vain attempt to bring relief is try to fix what we perceive to be wrong that's causing our distress. It's not us, or people like us, because we're good, hard working, peaceful people, so it must be people unlike us. Things would be so much better if it weren't for them. We can't just kill them off (unless them happens to be Muslims in other countries or illegal immigrants in this one), so we will reform them. We will actually be doing them a great personal service by unfucking their thinking, and once we're all the same page there will be peace and harmony and prosperity all around. They'll thank us for it!

The popular media reinforces this kind of thinking, even though it's demonstrably false. This happens for two reasons: First, it serves the (hopefully) obvious political agenda which is primarily geared toward serving the financial interests of the ruling elite. But, just as importantly and very, very rarely ever addressed, once the media has set the agenda, the sociology majors they employ for this very purpose tell them what their chosen segment(s) of the population want to hear. What they'll tune in to watch. So this media outlet appeals (by choice) to this group who wants to hear this kind of bullshit, and that media outlet appeals (by choice) to that group who wants to hear this other kind of bullshit. The loudmouths on this side attack the loudmouths on that side, and the loudmouths on that side attack back. Neither has anything to lose by behaving badly because the bad behavior is a big reason for people to tune in. Those folks who think differently are so obviously fucked in the head and are what is wrong with this country so dammit it's good to beat them down and I want to be associated with the brave soul delivering the beating.

Because that other guy, he says things that directly assail my beliefs so he must be beat down. This aggression will not stand, man! (Your aggression won't. Mine will.  ;) )

Quote from: forumdude on April 03, 2013, 11:30:20 PM
Everyone is afraid of emptiness, space, quietude, vacations (Americans don't take them).

Afraid of additional emptiness, I think, in most cases. And afraid to let the mind run free because it will either turn around and look into the void that is one's life, or express itself inappropriately and get fired, or arrested. Vacations? Americans are afraid to take them because it might cost them their jobs. And it truly might.

Quote from: forumdude on April 03, 2013, 11:30:20 PM
My expat friends here are all in remarkably good health - and most of them are in their 60s. They don't take any medicines (one friend can't kick nicotine gum though). Most don't have health insurance. I don't know what it is.

They're not here! You haven't said it, but I'd be willing to bet that they feel engaged with and part of a community in a way they never could in this country.

For what it's worth, nicotine by itself and in small quantities (as in gum) isn't all that hazardous as vices go, as long as the stimulant effect isn't thrashing a weak heart. Ice cream is more dangerous.

Quote from: forumdude on April 03, 2013, 11:30:20 PM
Let's not be disingenuous about Western medicine. There's an avalanche of data to suggest that western medicine (vaccination, antibiotics, epidemiology, sanitation) has given us longer lifespans. But I agree that the current state of pharmaceutical overprescribing is a huge problem and probably does more harm than good. But that's a completely different issue.

I am not totally opposed to western medicine. My wife and I avail ourselves of the medical services industry as needed, and as she's got a vexing heart condition a lot more than we'd like to or can readily afford even with health insurance. My big problem with the medical services industry is that it's entirely pharmaceutical and profit centered. These two factors make it dangerous. The fact that it strives for pinpoint diagnosis and treatment makes it ineffective and dangerous. There are in fact times when pinpoint diagnosis and treatment is absolutely correct, but there are more times when it's not.

I don't count things like improved sanitation and hygiene, lead and asbestos (heavy metals, mosquito, etc.) abatement, improved workplace safety, and automobile safety as medicine. The stuff I'm talking about is what happens when you actually avail yourself of the medical services industry's products and services. When you go to the doc and say, "Man, it hurts right here", that kind of thing. There are times when what they do is great, there are other times when it's as wrong as dating outside your own species. There was absolutely no reason for the cardiologist to send my father-in-law home to die, for example. If some random computer programmer can save the man's life, why the hell can't a highly trained, decades experienced cardiologist? Why do I see this kind of thing as often as I do, when I don't even offer my medical herbalism services to the public? Those are frustrated, rhetorical why questions, not please explain this to me why questions.

Every day, people just like my father-in-law are sent home to die, and if they don't happen to know any medical herbalists or have been brainwashed into thinking it quackery, that's what they do. They dutifully sit there in their recliners in front of their television sets and wait for that terminal stroke that will end their lives, completely unaware that in most cases everything they need to save their own lives is just around the corner at that large, well stocked supermarket. It's a horribly broken system that causes that to happen. We can't righteously call it health care, that thing they do. It's medical services delivery.

Quote from: forumdude on April 03, 2013, 11:30:20 PM
I see the US in time lapse photography and so I notice changes more acutely than most. The commercials for prescription drugs have multiplied like crazy over the last 20 years. It's a horror show. Not to mention that all commercials have eaten into our psychic health, which I secretly suspect are at the root of all our medical problems (well, part anyway). Remember when you could go see a movie and the only ads were for coming attractions? In the Netherlands there are only 10 minutes of commercials an hour on TV. In the states it's more than double that. I can't read Thai so I'm immune to them here. Thank Buddha.

Ain't it interestin' how you chose television programming as a means to differentiate the cultures?  ;)

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 08:08:41 AM
For my part no apologies necessary, and maybe I came across too forceful as well, been known to be the case.

I didn't perceive you as being too forceful. I thought we were having a discussion and was surprised to find out that it was seen as bigger'n 'at.

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 08:08:41 AM
RD Dude, you are no asshole, challenging and colorful, yes, asshole, naw.

Thanks, Dude. FWIW, I wasn't at all emotionally involved in, and certainly not tweaked over our discussion. If we'd all been sitting around the Dude pad making the Kahlua go away it would have been obvious enough, I guess. Thanks for not taking it as a paraquat spraying run!

Excellent points, Righteous Dude, and written with the skill of a pro writer. Are you? With a little structural tinkering this would make a great Dudespaper article.

Yeah, I've been out of the loop when it comes to the US medical system, or at least I was until my mom came down with a mystery illness in the summer of 2011. It was terrible. They wouldn't be straight with her or me (even when she wasn't around) and it only multiplied the suffering. Tried all sorts of tinkering and medicine that made her feel awful until finally a Canadian doctor gave it to us straight and the last month of her life was much more comfortable as a result. "We don't do it like this in Canada" he said. My Dutch girlfriend also was shocked by how shitty they treated her and how evident it was that no one wanted to be straight about anything. Gave her lots of false hope and exhausted her with too frequent office visits (she was practically paralyzed so each visit was a nightmare). In fairness, she was never diagnosed, but still, it was a thoroughly awful eight months. I would much rather be treated here in Thailand to be honest. For one thing, the nurses are much prettier! Ha ha.

Yeah, TV. I confess to watching series, but mostly comedies downloaded via bittorrent. I adamantly refuse to watch programmed TV anywhere due to the commercials. I'm thinking of printing up a stack of stickers to paste over ads that shouldn't be there (like in taxis) that say "This Adgression Will Not Stand, Man!" Maybe sell shitloads for cheap through the site and have people crusade around their city, Adbusting.

I dunno man, I see you are very careful to stuff your post full of qualifiers, but the semantic thrust of your argument is to demonize modern medicine, and promote false equivocations.

Gonna jump over the modern medicine thing, really my problem with that part of your argument is semantics and a tad too extreme. One of those times when I want to say, "can't we have both?", can't it be a wonderful human development that has some serious problems that need attention? Not a quackery set up to peddle pills and pocket the money? I offer up Doctors with out Borders, and the good parts of the CDC while recognizing there are some short falls on their part. Or the publicly funded Genome project, surely that is worthy of some love for the medical world. I would also like to argue that a lot of the problems you highlight are a product of the free market capitalism that is infused into much of our medical systems, like you said, medical industry.

To say one side bitching is the same as the other side bitching is quite often wrong. Case in point, gay marriage, is there truly no 'right' answer? Are those calling for equality of marriage entitled to merely the same amount of consideration as those who are opposed? There are right and wrong beliefs, the belief that one can own another human being exists to this day, yet it is clearly a wrong belief. And it is still a wrong enough belief to justify open war if no other option exists to squelch that belief.

My point was that we should endeavor to find the right answers, that there are right understandings, that in some cases there is a clearly right answer.

I also said we should engage others when we have justification to challenge their beliefs, I said to do so as strongly as the situation requires, "full on intellectual warfare" I think I used. Which is exactly what happened here. I would further assert that all who were involved here have grown or experienced other positive effects. So my premise has been proven ITT.

I leave you with Sam Harris to continue to argue my point. http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html)

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 02:43:05 PM

There are right and wrong beliefs, the belief that one can own another human being exists to this day, yet it is clearly a wrong belief.

There are child prostitutes in many countries who are owned, so the belief that one can own another human being is not wrong, it is factually correct.

Factually is the best kind of correct.

That sentence worked until you had to say something, now all I see is a train wreck of a sentence and it will haunt my nightmares. thanx man :p

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 03:49:07 PM
Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Quote from: forumdude on April 04, 2013, 01:30:17 PM
Excellent points, Righteous Dude, and written with the skill of a pro writer. Are you?

Only in programming languages, but thanks for the flowers, man! I do a little technical writing here and there as it's required but that's the extent of it.

Quote from: forumdude on April 04, 2013, 01:30:17 PM
With a little structural tinkering this would make a great Dudespaper article.

If you'd like for me to work on it a bit, clue me in on what you think is the most important message and I'll twiddle the bits around to suit. It was stream of consciousness on the way out, but it could be great good fun to write something for general public consumption.

Quote from: forumdude on April 04, 2013, 01:30:17 PM
Tried all sorts of tinkering and medicine that made her feel awful until finally a Canadian doctor gave it to us straight and the last month of her life was much more comfortable as a result. "We don't do it like this in Canada" he said.

I'm really sorry that your mom had to go through that.

They don't do the same things anywhere else on Earth that are done here, that I know of. I talk to/consult with medical herbalists all over the globe and don't hear from them the same horror stories that I hear from my compeers here in the land of the great bald bird. Distilling the whole darn thing to get at its essence: We have a medical services industry rather than a health care system, and the patients are viewed primarily as cash cows who might be ridden by lawyers. That's why they're so often unwilling to be straight with you -- they're avoiding the creation of evidence. A doc who says something off-script that appears in court can kiss his or her career goodbye.

Don't get me wrong, though. I know and have known many really good docs who entered the field because they care and want to do good works. Quite a few of whom have told me that if they had another marketable skill they'd abandon medicine because of the great frustration they endure every day from dealing with administrators and peers who care more about profit than patient care. Others say that they'll continue toughing it out because if they don't their patients will be stuck with that other lot and they can't stand the idea of that happening. And, sadly, it's over on the mental health side, too. I knew a shrink who was then about my age or a little older who told me that he could never retire because there would always be too many people out there being ground up into mental hamburger by the system. And it's not just medicine. Some of the software I get in for debugging is horrid. It seems that where there's an above-average wage to be had for sitting on your ass, there's sure to be greed, chaos, and mayhem.

Quote from: forumdude on April 04, 2013, 01:30:17 PM
I adamantly refuse to watch programmed TV anywhere due to the commercials.

I'm the same way, though when I traveled a lot I would watch a bit in the hotel room just to get a taste for the culture. I always got a huge kick out of being in Australia around the holiday season, seeing commercials full of bikini clad babes and barbecues on the beach. It was like a mental anchor, pinning me to the map, reminding me to groove on where I was so fortunate to be at the time.

Quote from: forumdude on April 04, 2013, 01:30:17 PM
I'm thinking of printing up a stack of stickers to paste over ads that shouldn't be there (like in taxis) that say "This Adgression Will Not Stand, Man!" Maybe sell shitloads for cheap through the site and have people crusade around their city, Adbusting.

Sounds like a fine idea to me!

I was really blown away during the time we spent in Las Vegas by just how aggressive the advertising is. Here in this little mountain town that most consider just a wide spot in the road, there's none of that. It would be considered to be in exceptionally poor taste. There? I was reminded of the movie Idiocracy. It was everywhere. There were trucks that just drove around with billboards on the back, people whose job it was to shake signs on the side of the road, cars wrapped completely in advertising, stickers on every sign post... it was just crazy. I found it offensive. I think it might have negatively affected my mental health.

Something did. I'll blame that.  8)

Quote from: RighteousDude on April 04, 2013, 12:45:22 PM
she's got a vexing heart condition

You probably know this already RD, but Hawthorn berries are organ specific for the heart and support its function almost regardless of the exact pathology. They combine well with Leonorus cardiaca (nice that the latin dudes put the clue in the name). My father had two heart attacks and was put on strong allopathic medication. I got him off everything in two weeks (he only took hawthorn after that) and he never had any further heart problems in his remaining twenty years. Of course things aren't always so straightforward and I too am not against the judicious use of 'orthodox' medicine occasionally. I'd say we sort out over 90% of our family's medical needs with herbs.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 04, 2013, 04:01:59 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 03:49:07 PM
Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

For instance, is denying equality of marriage right or wrong? Does it cause suffering? Does allowing it cause more suffering than not allowing it? Does the sun care either way?

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 04, 2013, 04:42:22 PM
You probably know this already RD, but Hawthorn berries are organ specific for the heart and support its function almost regardless of the exact pathology.

Hawthorn and I are friends from way back but it's not gonna touch PSVT, which is what ails her even after $180,000 worth of high zoot modern medical miracle surgery (RF ablation, that is) last summer.

Long story, but the short version is that it was never a serious problem and never required medical intervention until first chronic traumatic stress then PTSD were introduced into the equation. We got the PTSD handled herbally, no longer requiring treatment, but that niggling remnant of it that is difficult to clear seems to complicate the PSVT. She usually doesn't believe the remnant is there, but sometimes agrees that it is, and she intensely dislikes cannabis which is my go-to for the last of a PTSD treatment and works every darn time (so far). I'm thinking Pedicularis, not because I've used it on PTSD before but because it's told me in the past that it'll work. If I'd known early enough last year that we might need it I would have gone out wildcrafting, but now I've got to wait because its favorite habitats are still under lingering snow.

I like Pedicularis well enough for attitude trim that I ought to get some anyway.  8) A little Elephant Head, a little Mullein, maybe a wee little pinch of Bearberry bark... now that's a smoke!

Quote from: RighteousDude on April 04, 2013, 07:59:53 PM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 04, 2013, 04:42:22 PM
You probably know this already RD, but Hawthorn berries are organ specific for the heart and support its function almost regardless of the exact pathology.

Hawthorn and I are friends from way back but it's not gonna touch PSVT, which is what ails her even after $180,000 worth of high zoot modern medical miracle surgery (RF ablation, that is) last summer.

Long story, but the short version is that it was never a serious problem and never required medical intervention until first chronic traumatic stress then PTSD were introduced into the equation. We got the PTSD handled herbally, no longer requiring treatment, but that niggling remnant of it that is difficult to clear seems to complicate the PSVT. She usually doesn't believe the remnant is there, but sometimes agrees that it is, and she intensely dislikes cannabis which is my go-to for the last of a PTSD treatment and works every darn time (so far). I'm thinking Pedicularis, not because I've used it on PTSD before but because it's told me in the past that it'll work. If I'd known early enough last year that we might need it I would have gone out wildcrafting, but now I've got to wait because its favorite habitats are still under lingering snow.

I like Pedicularis well enough for attitude trim that I ought to get some anyway.  8) A little Elephant Head, a little Mullein, maybe a wee little pinch of Bearberry bark... now that's a smoke!

I've never used Pedicularis but maybe I should as it's supposed to be good for neck and shoulder tension. I think its mildly sedative, relaxing vibe may give it a similar role to Leonorus but there is always the subtler side to a herbs personality that one doesn't really get from the books. I use Mullein in my smoke mix too. Been tempted to add in a bit of Datura (lot of it growing by the river).

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 05:12:15 PM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 04, 2013, 04:01:59 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 03:49:07 PM
Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

And yet even the caste iron moral truth that you choose yourself 'that one person can not own another' has loads of problems. Once you get married and have kids your wife owns you financially, should she ever choose to divorce you. This can lead to all sorts of restrictions on a person's freedom. I'm not even saying it's wrong, plenty of folk would argue that it's a perfectly reasonable form of enforced responsibility but the fact is, we are owned by our partners, employers, children etc in significant ways and it isn't as clear as you suggest to say that it is morally wrong.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 01:52:47 AM

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 05:12:15 PM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 04, 2013, 04:01:59 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 03:49:07 PM
Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

And yet even the caste iron moral truth that you choose yourself 'that one person can not own another' has loads of problems. Once you get married and have kids your wife owns you financially, should she ever choose to divorce you. This can lead to all sorts of restrictions on a person's freedom. I'm not even saying it's wrong, plenty of folk would argue that it's a perfectly reasonable form of enforced responsibility but the fact is, we are owned by our partners, employers, children etc in significant ways and it isn't as clear as you suggest to say that it is morally wrong.

Yes, being obliged by social contracts is exactly like being owned under institutionalized slavery.

But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

Institutionalized slavery, such as the type realized in the US prior to the mid 19th century, right or wrong? As empathetic beings, can we not answer this question?

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 06:27:51 AM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 01:52:47 AM

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 05:12:15 PM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 04, 2013, 04:01:59 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 03:49:07 PM
Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

And yet even the caste iron moral truth that you choose yourself 'that one person can not own another' has loads of problems. Once you get married and have kids your wife owns you financially, should she ever choose to divorce you. This can lead to all sorts of restrictions on a person's freedom. I'm not even saying it's wrong, plenty of folk would argue that it's a perfectly reasonable form of enforced responsibility but the fact is, we are owned by our partners, employers, children etc in significant ways and it isn't as clear as you suggest to say that it is morally wrong.

Yes, being obliged by social contracts is exactly like being owned under institutionalized slavery.

But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

Institutionalized slavery, such as the type realized in the US prior to the mid 19th century, right or wrong? As empathetic beings, can we not answer this question?

Anyone can pick out a moral issue which has been clarified by the passage of time and judged by history and say 'look we know the right answer' but that doesn't show that we can have the same clarity on the live ethical problems that face us right now: factory farming/organics, Arab/Israeli dispute, technology/global warming. The answers are rarely straightforward. Personally I own a gun but am in favour of gun control, I'm a liberal but think abortion is too widely available, I'm agnostic but defend people's right to their religious beliefs - that's just one person and it's already complex!

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 01:46:13 AM
I've never used Pedicularis but maybe I should as it's supposed to be good for neck and shoulder tension.

Yep, among the things it's good for there's that. And the neat thing is that it'll hit the cause as well as the symptom, temporarily. Tried Acorus calamus in conjunction with meditation?

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 01:46:13 AM
I think its mildly sedative, relaxing vibe may give it a similar role to Leonorus but there is always the subtler side to a herbs personality that one doesn't really get from the books.

:) Books are nice and I love reading them, but I think that when it comes right down to it the best thing is to experience the plants because some things just don't translate well into words. A really fine example is Acorus calamus, which just steadfastly defies attempts to define it. Some louseworts I've known are downright stony. I've learned not to nibble if I'm too far from the road and don't have time for a nap. Well, not to nibble too much anyway. It's hard to say no.

Some years ago I consulted with a guy whose wife was unable to work and drawing disability due to a persistent shoulder spasm. She was something like 16 or 18 months into it, in constant pain, and hadn't had a single good night's sleep since it locked up on her. The docs tried everything they had on it, finally decided she'd make a good Oxycontin addict. You've probably seen people the same way, figuring that the herbal medicine thing is bullshit but the white coat gods can't pull a miracle out of their asses so desperation rules the day. I did what I always do, delegated the thinking to the subconscious that remembers more and collates it much faster than the conscious mind. It said, get this: Scutellaria. The books would say right direction, wrong answer. Too mild, works best on smooth muscle. But experience ruled the day, so I recommended it and suggested that he watch her face while she held a dropper-full under her tongue for a minute or so before swallowing -- because if it was going to work, he'd see it in her face before she consciously realized it, and it's always a big thrill to witness that. He did, she did, and she got her life back that day. Informed experience beats hell out of books every time.

My special lady friend was gifted a respiratory virus a few weeks ago, and it resulted in pleurisy. WTF. And here I am with no Asclepias on hand. On a lark we threw some Scutellaria at it for the pain, because I had about a half liter of tincture on hand, and it worked. I don't know the mechanism by which pleurisy pain is produced, wouldn't have thought to try a scullcap on it if I'd had another option at the ready, but there ya have it. (I was having trouble getting a handle on the diagnosis so we took her to the doc for confirmation. He prescribed Prednisone. WTF?)

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 01:46:13 AM
I use Mullein in my smoke mix too. Been tempted to add in a bit of Datura (lot of it growing by the river).

I love Mullein. It's got some really cool magic to it.

Have you got experience with Datura? I don't personally know anyone who's been able to continue liking it. I hear that it's hugely unpleasant when it gets mad at you.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 08:42:46 AM

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 06:27:51 AM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 01:52:47 AM

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 05:12:15 PM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 04, 2013, 04:01:59 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 04, 2013, 03:49:07 PM
Factually is the best kind of correct.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it may be more appropriate to be socially correct, morally correct, aesthetically correct.....
That's exactly why I make the point, because you discuss right and wrong as if these were objective, factual issues when your examples are concerned with beliefs about right and wrong in the ethical, encultured, social senses and that makes the belief far more subjective.

Sam Harris answers that in his talk. 

There are empirical moral/ethical truths, maybe not for atoms and molecules, but for sentient beings there are. Anything that causes unnecessary suffering in sentient beings is objectively wrong. There may be more than one way to reach a "peak" of human flourishing and prosperity, but that is like saying there are more than a few vegetables that are good for you, or there are several poisons that will kill you.

And yet even the caste iron moral truth that you choose yourself 'that one person can not own another' has loads of problems. Once you get married and have kids your wife owns you financially, should she ever choose to divorce you. This can lead to all sorts of restrictions on a person's freedom. I'm not even saying it's wrong, plenty of folk would argue that it's a perfectly reasonable form of enforced responsibility but the fact is, we are owned by our partners, employers, children etc in significant ways and it isn't as clear as you suggest to say that it is morally wrong.

Yes, being obliged by social contracts is exactly like being owned under institutionalized slavery.

But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

Institutionalized slavery, such as the type realized in the US prior to the mid 19th century, right or wrong? As empathetic beings, can we not answer this question?

Anyone can pick out a moral issue which has been clarified by the passage of time and judged by history and say 'look we know the right answer' but that doesn't show that we can have the same clarity on the live ethical problems that face us right now: factory farming/organics, Arab/Israeli dispute, technology/global warming. The answers are rarely straightforward. Personally I own a gun but am in favour of gun control, I'm a liberal but think abortion is too widely available, I'm agnostic but defend people's right to their religious beliefs - that's just one person and it's already complex!

Never once said it was easy or that we have all the answers, but is that any reason not to try and know what leads human flourishing, progress and prosperity?

And my original appeal was about gay marriage, not settled by time, but the aggression of our time (and a more challenging question). Is denying equal rights to marriage right or wrong? We do not have the luxury of being able to pass on this, the world is demanding an answer now. In the context of human progress, is the belief that marriage is defined by Yahweh, and not by human societies right or wrong?

How about this, is meditation a product of Satanism? That is a real and current belief among some Christian cults, are you an agent of the dark lord? Or just maybe they hold wrong beliefs. http://johnthewitness.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/new-age-spirituality-is-satanic/ (http://johnthewitness.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/new-age-spirituality-is-satanic/)

What I am not saying, that we have all the complete answers, that we should engage the same way Chris Mathews and Sean Hannity debate (if you can call it that). I am not suggesting we are all as witty and charming as Ricky Gervais and should go around challenging Christians the way he does. I am not suggesting there is a singular way, one path to the peaks of moral achievement, there are many paths to the top.

Quote from: RighteousDude on April 05, 2013, 09:39:52 AM

I don't know the mechanism by which pleurisy pain is produced, wouldn't have thought to try a scullcap on it if I'd had another option at the ready, but there ya have it. (I was having trouble getting a handle on the diagnosis so we took her to the doc for confirmation. He prescribed Prednisone. WTF?)

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 01:46:13 AM
I use Mullein in my smoke mix too. Been tempted to add in a bit of Datura (lot of it growing by the river).

I love Mullein. It's got some really cool magic to it.

Have you got experience with Datura? I don't personally know anyone who's been able to continue liking it. I hear that it's hugely unpleasant when it gets mad at you.

I think pleurisy pain is caused by a partial detachment of the lining between the lungs and the inner wall of the chest, or inflammation in that space causing friction. Typically worse with a deep breath because that puts the pleuritic lining under tension. Think I used to use Inula, haven't treated it for a while.

The Scutellaria we used to buy in England was crap, almost certainly highly adulterated. Best, as always, to wild craft your own, which can produce results very different from bought stuff.

I used to be a big Carlos Castaneda fan, so I was wary of Datura (Devil's weed) but I respond to it minimally.

Sounds like you work in a more intuitive way than me. I feel I have to know what it says in the books, sometimes it's useful, but often it gets in the way. My teacher, Chris Hedley, managed to combine the two and had great knowledge without ever losing a feel for what he was doing and a respect for the magic of the plants. Very groovy dude Chris.

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 12:06:16 PM

And my original appeal was about gay marriage, not settled by time, but the aggression of our time (and a more challenging question). Is denying equal rights to marriage right or wrong? We do not have the luxury of being able to pass on this, the world is demanding an answer now. In the context of human progress, is the belief that marriage is defined by Yahweh, and not by human societies right or wrong?

You can't take Yahwey out of the equation by saying that marriage should be defined by human society because a belief in Yahwey is imbedded into a lot of society and therefore forms part of how a society makes its decisions.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 12:06:16 PM

And my original appeal was about gay marriage, not settled by time, but the aggression of our time (and a more challenging question). Is denying equal rights to marriage right or wrong? We do not have the luxury of being able to pass on this, the world is demanding an answer now. In the context of human progress, is the belief that marriage is defined by Yahweh, and not by human societies right or wrong?

You can't take Yahwey out of the equation by saying that marriage should be defined by human society because a belief in Yahwey is imbedded into a lot of society and therefore forms part of how a society makes its decisions.

But is that right? And does that extend to honor killings, beheading witches or stoning victims of rape for being whores?

So people should suffer inequality because other people have the belief Yaweh is real? So are you saying we should sanction inequality because we might offend one groups religious beliefs otherwise?

Sorry, you can not honor your love and partake in it the benefits and challenges of marriage, because it may offend Jim Bob Onetooth's beliefs in a meta-physical being.

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 12:45:38 PM

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 12:06:16 PM

And my original appeal was about gay marriage, not settled by time, but the aggression of our time (and a more challenging question). Is denying equal rights to marriage right or wrong? We do not have the luxury of being able to pass on this, the world is demanding an answer now. In the context of human progress, is the belief that marriage is defined by Yahweh, and not by human societies right or wrong?

You can't take Yahwey out of the equation by saying that marriage should be defined by human society because a belief in Yahwey is imbedded into a lot of society and therefore forms part of how a society makes its decisions.

But is that right? And does that extend to honor killings, beheading witches or stoning victims of rape for being whores?

So people should suffer inequality because other people have the belief Yaweh is real? So are you saying we should sanction inequality because we might offend one groups religious beliefs otherwise?

Sorry, you can not honor your love and partake in it the benefits and challenges of marriage, because it may offend Jim Bob Onetooth's beliefs in a meta-physical being.

Well if king revgms ruled the world no doubt all the decisions would be perfect but in a democracy we have to take other people's beliefs, views etc' into account even when we don't agree with them.

At the expense of what is actually beneficial for our species, or embracing what is destructive to our society? And no matter how absurd those beliefs are?

And does this extend to other domains, like science, is believing in creationism equivocal to believing in evolution, and should we base our policies on meta-physical claims based on belief over accepted scientific observations?

I know it is an appeal to authority, but let us check out what Buddha said on this subject 2500 years ago.

This is one of the best if not the best Buddha quotes. It sets the tone for what Shakyamuni is really saying.

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances."

"Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion."

"Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good."

- The Buddha

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 02:09:45 PM
At the expense of what is actually beneficial for our species, or embracing what is destructive to our society? And no matter how absurd those beliefs are?

And does this extend to other domains, like science, is believing in creationism equivocal to believing in evolution, and should we base our policies on meta-physical claims based on belief over accepted scientific observations?

I know it is an appeal to authority, but let us check out what Buddha said on this subject 2500 years ago.

This is one of the best if not the best Buddha quotes. It sets the tone for what Shakyamuni is really saying.

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances."

"Do not give up your authority and follow blindly the will of others. This way will lead to only delusion."

"Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good."

- The Buddha

And the Buddha's words would apply to not blindly following what scientists say just because they are scientists. It may ultimately be the results of technology and pollution which do more damage to the planet and humans than anything that has been invented by religions.

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 06:27:51 AM
But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

"We" is where you'll find the friction. People have different ethics, different moral compasses, different hopes and fears, different motives. When you bring together a disparate group, the only consensus you'll find will be one that appeals to the baser natures of all. Regression toward the meanest, ya know?

I've a neighbor who has no problem at all with the US conducting resource wars. His thinking is that if the energy resources are not made available the world economy will go further down the sewer, so killing tens of thousands to take the energy resources will save the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions around the globe who are already on the brink of starvation, by pumping the economy, lowering prices, leaving more resources for aid programs, and so on. Who do ya want dead, he asks, ten thousand terrorists or one hundred thousand peaceful Africans? Someone's got to decide, he says, and doing nothing decides for the worst outcome.

I disagree with the guy. Strongly. You probably do, too. But "we", if we're talking about the society in which we live, includes that guy and lots more just like him. They think my answers are wrong, ill informed unicorn shit.

I am certainly not promoting blind adherence to what anyone says, be they scientist or Medicine man, you have to do your own research, like the Buddha dude said, test it, burn it and scratch it as the gold smith would.

Science is not perfect, but it has been incredibly successful at improving human life, and is the only option for us if we intend to out live our planet. What you state may be true, that there is massive destruction to our environment from the misapplication of science, but that does not speak to the veracity of the truth of its claims. It speaks to our ability to make wise choices. And I would argue that it is based on another wrong belief, the belief that capital and GDP growth, are the proper metrics to use to determine our energy strategy as a species.

I am taking the position of a constructive empiricist, that we don't need to have the whole truth to know enough to deiscern what is practical truth to our condition. The poison arrow speaks to this, and I dig Thay's interpretation.

"The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth."

? Hanh, Thich; Philip Kapleau (2005). Zen Keys. Three Leaves Press. p. 42.

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 02:48:47 PM

Science is not perfect, but it has been incredibly successful at improving human life,

It is entirely possible that the nett effect of science will be destruction of our environment and human life on a massive scale. The fact that the light bulb of human civilisation glowed more brightly before it exploded probably won't be of much comfort.

Quote from: RighteousDude on April 05, 2013, 02:40:45 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 06:27:51 AM
But seriously, are you suggesting that because we we don't have all the answers, or have imperfect answers, that we can not discern what is a wrong answer?

"We" is where you'll find the friction. People have different ethics, different moral compasses, different hopes and fears, different motives. When you bring together a disparate group, the only consensus you'll find will be one that appeals to the baser natures of all. Regression toward the meanest, ya know?

I've a neighbor who has no problem at all with the US conducting resource wars. His thinking is that if the energy resources are not made available the world economy will go further down the sewer, so killing tens of thousands to take the energy resources will save the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions around the globe who are already on the brink of starvation, by pumping the economy, lowering prices, leaving more resources for aid programs, and so on. Who do ya want dead, he asks, ten thousand terrorists or one hundred thousand peaceful Africans? Someone's got to decide, he says, and doing nothing decides for the worst outcome.

I disagree with the guy. Strongly. You probably do, too. But "we", if we're talking about the society in which we live, includes that guy and lots more just like him. They think my answers are wrong, ill informed unicorn shit.

Are his observations correct? Is there no other way than war? Did he account for all the resources that would be lost in a war effort. Is he aware that we could turn the state of Navada into a sun farm and ultimately produce far more energy for less dollars than the cost of war? Have you clued him into ITER, the first commecial scale testbed fussion reactor being built in France? And how that is a better investment. Has he fully calculated the cost of environmental degradation, I bet he hasn't?

Sure, he has an opinion, but does it flesh out in facts, I could prove that it doesn't with out ever sharing my personal opinion.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 02:57:19 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 02:48:47 PM

Science is not perfect, but it has been incredibly successful at improving human life,

It is entirely possible that the nett effect of science will be destruction of our environment and human life on a massive scale. The fact that the light bulb of human civilisation glowed more brightly before it exploded probably won't be of much comfort.

Again, that has to with our ability to discern the right understanding from the wrong understandings. Not whether or not what science finds to be true or not true.

QuoteMy confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. -Dalai Lama

And yes that may be the case, but it may also be the case that in 40 years hence we have passed over the singularity and become true citizens of the universe, able to travel to and know the stars, to be able to alleviate all the suffering that is possible to alleviate. To grant long contented lives of inner and outer exploration to all sentient beings we can.

The 3d printer can produce a gun, or a kidney, how we use it based on our beliefs not on what science can achieve.

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 03:04:38 PM

it may also be the case that in 40 years hence we have passed over the singularity and become true citizens of the universe, able to travel to and know the stars, to be able to alleviate all the suffering that is possible to alleviate. To grant long contented lives of inner and outer exploration to all sentient beings we can.

You've been on the 'Star Trek' re-runs again haven't you dude?

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 03:14:41 PM

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 03:04:38 PM

it may also be the case that in 40 years hence we have passed over the singularity and become true citizens of the universe, able to travel to and know the stars, to be able to alleviate all the suffering that is possible to alleviate. To grant long contented lives of inner and outer exploration to all sentient beings we can.

You've been on the 'Star Trek' re-runs again haven't you dude?

LOL yup

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
The Scutellaria we used to buy in England was crap, almost certainly highly adulterated. Best, as always, to wild craft your own, which can produce results very different from bought stuff.

I heard about that contamination thing and that the same sources were exporting it to the US, too. I prefer wildcrafting, will gladly grow, and if need be, buy from reputable sources.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
I used to be a big Carlos Castaneda fan, so I was wary of Datura (Devil's weed) but I respond to it minimally.

I've read all of this stuff, but unlike many of my compeers I already knew better than to risk inviting Datura to put her spiked heel through my neck. Could be I'm a pussy.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
Sounds like you work in a more intuitive way than me.

Eh, yes and no. I do a lot of reading up front when learning a new plant's ways, but after that I spend time with it. If I can I'll go meet it in the wild, sit with it in the sunshine, all that totally non-scientific stuff. I figure that living things are always more than can be written about them -- can't get to know a woman by studying biology and psychology, ya know? Then I get hold of some, from the stand if I found one that could afford the loss, from a reputable source otherwise, and ingest it, prepared this way and that. Can't know orgasm from reading about it, or watching it on film.  ;D

After all of that, I either feel to some extent comfortable with the plant and use it, or feel too uncomfortable with it and don't. Lobelia, for example, is just shy of intolerable discomfort for me so I rarely use it. Thomson loved the stuff, but I can't find it in me to trust the pukers.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
I feel I have to know what it says in the books, sometimes it's useful, but often it gets in the way.

I, too, have to know what's written. And I always go back and look again if I'm looking at something I haven't used recently, just to be sure I'm not falling prey to faulty memory. But I start most times with a bit of meditation to let the subconscious chew on the problem at hand.

Quote from: Boston Rockbury on April 05, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
My teacher, Chris Hedley, managed to combine the two and had great knowledge without ever losing a feel for what he was doing and a respect for the magic of the plants. Very groovy dude Chris.

He does seem a groovy dude, from what (very) little I know. I like his humours approach, in principle, but I have trouble even nailing myself down. I lean more toward (Michael) Moore's energetics because I find it easier to wrap my head around. As long as it works it doesn't matter which mode of thought you use to get there, eh?

Quote from: revgms on April 05, 2013, 02:59:53 PM
Is he aware that we could turn the state of Navada into a sun farm and ultimately produce far more energy for less dollars than the cost of war?

If I went to my neighbor, who is callous but not ignorant, and said, "But dude, you know, solar energy Nevada desert Wyoming fucking wind farm, man!", he'd never take me seriously again. Nor should he, no matter how eloquently I might present it. The energy we're destroying Afghanistan over is not destined for the Western Hemisphere.

Eh, this discussion is fun and all, but my attention span is short and, uh, nice pad you got here, man. Unspoiled. I'd hate to bleed on it.