That would be Benjamin Franklin who said that, I believe, and I don't see anywhere where he is suggesting the wholesale slaughter of those who oppose liberty.
Well, his next bill will propose that adults are not only incapable of choosing what is and what isn't appropriate to be played or viewed by themselves and their children, but also to choose who chooses what is and is not appropriate.
I agree that when you look at it, religion supplies lies and fantasies, as you put it.
All I said was that people look to religion to find meaning. I don't believe they actually find it. People will, however, accept fake meaning, wrong answers, and false hope. Because it's easier than accepting reality and thinking for yourself.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Religion offers answers. It doesn't offer evidence, it doesn't need it. The people don't want it. They want answers. Considering those answers may shake one's faith in them, losing the benefits of "knowing" said answer.
Answers like (just as examples): "When did life begin?" "6,000 years ago." "What's the meaning of life?" "To serve God and to make it into Heaven." "Is the Earth the center of the universe?" "Yes."
Questioning these answers makes you unsure, and we don't like to be unsure. Doubt is scary.
This is the largest problem, as far as I can see, with arguing about God: We try to define him, who is often described as indescribable, in terms that we, as humans, created. Numbers, letters, shapes, species, gender are all concepts we made to simplify our world. They do not, in reality, exist.
Not that it stops people from believing it with extreme fervor. I view the most common problem with religion as the fact that there are so many of them. And all of them are held to be absolutely, 100% true and most often, entirely exclusionary. "My God exists, and is the only god. Any other gods are a blasphemy" and all that.
Why is it that, supposing that there is one true faith with a set of predetermined moral values that do not change, just hypothetically, this faith is not the clear winner? Does God, often depicted as being omnipotent and all knowing, merely have the worst PR department in history? He has the opportunity to rig the greatest advertising campaign in the history of the universe, and still there are hundreds of copycats, knock offs, and competitors that are doing just as well, if not better?
To me, a much easier explanation would be that people rarely question the beliefs imposed on them in their adolescence, which would also explain why, up until globalization, faith was almost always easily determined by location.
True, science can't prove anything to be 100% true. But it can be so damn close, it wouldn't be prudent to assume otherwise. At least under the circumstances we find ourselves dealing with on Earth.
Religion has yet to offer us any evidence at all. Or rather, evidence that didn't have some sort of logical flaws or wasn't based on the questionable testimonies of dead and/or crazy people.
You're implying that life, itself, is not entirely meaningless. It could very well be a meaningless computation. I propose that life itself is, in fact, 100% devoid of any inherit worth.
Now, hold on, put down your pitchfork and torches. I'm not advocating hedonism or "killing people 'cause their lives aren't worth anything." I said "inherit" worth. We, as a species, can attribute meaning into things. I wouldn't say "being alive is magical," as you would put it. Rather, I would say that we don't know what it's like to be anything other than alive. Thus, we can use the time we have to apply meaning of our own. Do what makes you happy, to a reasonable extent. Expand your mind. So what if your dream of constructing the largest scale model of The Taj Mahal using gum drops seems like a waste of time to someone else?
My basic point is, people search for meaning in life. That's why we have religion. We want to be given a purpose, a reason to get up in the morning instead of just putting a gun in our mouths and ending it. But "meaning" is a totally human created concept. As such, it cannot be found, only made. Thus, I feel any attempt to "find" meaning through spirituality is merely a false hope. People take it as the shortest route, but never truly arrive.
Does the WH really need these outlets, though? Obama's campaign, if nothing else, proved that other means can achieve better results. The Internet, most of all, really helped his campaign.
I'd like to ask, though, is reporting a negative story on a candidate more often than positive stories really a sign of bias?
Could it be that one side honestly, and I'm being serious here, made more gaffes than the other? McCain, by many large accounts of analysts (going by memory, correct me if you wish) made a lot more openly obvious mistakes. Obama made a lot of mistakes, too, don't get me wrong. And when he did, they hammered him for it. Hell, they gave one of his mistakes a -gate suffix. Bittergate.
I'd be more concerned with the press ignoring actual news rather than their failure to report that Obama, gasp, didn't wear an American flag lapel.
I have a myriad of complaints on NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and CNN, but "they're so blatantly biased towards the left that it physically causes me pain" isn't one of them.
The reason I, personally, have a problem with Beck is exactly what is portrayed by this website.
He never SAYS that "The Government is doing *Insert Evil Act Here*." He just implies it. A lot. With no facts at all. Then he cries, and claims he's scared, all attempting to make people think he cares about them.
Then he compares some government program to what Hitler would do. Then maybe he talks about how the government COULD, not that they are, but so easily COULD put something in the swine flu vaccine.
It's scare politics. It's all it really is. Sure, he throws out the occasional "well, I'm speaking of the Republicans, too, don't want to make this political," but by far it's obvious where his loyalties lie. So obvious even SNL mocks him for it. Which is saying something.
And yes, Olbermann can be bad. But that's one guy on one channel. And he does tend to have some factual basis for his opinions. And I don't see his stuff leaking into the rest of the MSNBC newscasting.
I disagree with your story. Clearly, the engineer in question didn't do ENOUGH thinking. I can easily see an uneducated person deciding to put a traffic light there with no second thoughts.
I think "common sense" is a misnomer. Never in my life have I ever found something to be both sensible and common.
What you have here is an example of laziness. Someone who didn't put in the time and effort to examine all the factors. Who didn't ask around for more information.
And personally, I find uneducated people to be every bit as smug and condescending as the educated. I feel it is a human trait. I know plenty of people who value age-old prejudices over anything else because "It's just common sense that ($_RACE_OR_ETHNICITY) is ($_GENERIC_INSULT)."
Long story short, no, there is no such thing as being "too educated." Because someone who trusts everything to go smoothly without taking into account all the variables has missed a large portion of their education.
To be fair, he did not say those who WATCH Glenn Beck. He said FANS OF Glenn Beck. There is a difference. I can certainly imagine someone watching his show for the same comedic reasons one watches people set themselves on fire on Youtube: People making asses of themselves is entertaining.
"Only due to a deliberate decision by Nintendo to *not* increase production."
Which was a smart idea. To increase production would have required an additional factory. When they finally DO meet demand, they'd simply have an extra factory to maintain and lost money in building it. Their decision cost them an immediate access to the demand but secured a steady revenue stream for years.
No matter how "hardcore" gamers view Nintendo, it's hard to not respect their business savvy.
I'm in total agreement. If anything, we need more warnings about kids playing the game for the adults. I play Team-Fortress 2 (PC version) regularly and rarely hear swearing or cursing from other players. But sometimes, a little kid gets on and is worse than every other chatter combined. It's annoying.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be Benjamin Franklin who said that, I believe, and I don't see anywhere where he is suggesting the wholesale slaughter of those who oppose liberty.
Well, his next bill will propose that adults are not only incapable of choosing what is and what isn't appropriate to be played or viewed by themselves and their children, but also to choose who chooses what is and is not appropriate.
I agree that when you look at it, religion supplies lies and fantasies, as you put it.
All I said was that people look to religion to find meaning. I don't believe they actually find it. People will, however, accept fake meaning, wrong answers, and false hope. Because it's easier than accepting reality and thinking for yourself.
I have no excuse. I hereby hand in my grammar nazi card.
I think you hit the nail on the head there. Religion offers answers. It doesn't offer evidence, it doesn't need it. The people don't want it. They want answers. Considering those answers may shake one's faith in them, losing the benefits of "knowing" said answer.
Answers like (just as examples):
"When did life begin?" "6,000 years ago."
"What's the meaning of life?" "To serve God and to make it into Heaven."
"Is the Earth the center of the universe?" "Yes."
Questioning these answers makes you unsure, and we don't like to be unsure. Doubt is scary.
This is the largest problem, as far as I can see, with arguing about God: We try to define him, who is often described as indescribable, in terms that we, as humans, created. Numbers, letters, shapes, species, gender are all concepts we made to simplify our world. They do not, in reality, exist.
Not that it stops people from believing it with extreme fervor. I view the most common problem with religion as the fact that there are so many of them. And all of them are held to be absolutely, 100% true and most often, entirely exclusionary. "My God exists, and is the only god. Any other gods are a blasphemy" and all that.
Why is it that, supposing that there is one true faith with a set of predetermined moral values that do not change, just hypothetically, this faith is not the clear winner? Does God, often depicted as being omnipotent and all knowing, merely have the worst PR department in history? He has the opportunity to rig the greatest advertising campaign in the history of the universe, and still there are hundreds of copycats, knock offs, and competitors that are doing just as well, if not better?
To me, a much easier explanation would be that people rarely question the beliefs imposed on them in their adolescence, which would also explain why, up until globalization, faith was almost always easily determined by location.
True, science can't prove anything to be 100% true. But it can be so damn close, it wouldn't be prudent to assume otherwise. At least under the circumstances we find ourselves dealing with on Earth.
Religion has yet to offer us any evidence at all. Or rather, evidence that didn't have some sort of logical flaws or wasn't based on the questionable testimonies of dead and/or crazy people.
You're implying that life, itself, is not entirely meaningless. It could very well be a meaningless computation. I propose that life itself is, in fact, 100% devoid of any inherit worth.
Now, hold on, put down your pitchfork and torches. I'm not advocating hedonism or "killing people 'cause their lives aren't worth anything." I said "inherit" worth. We, as a species, can attribute meaning into things. I wouldn't say "being alive is magical," as you would put it. Rather, I would say that we don't know what it's like to be anything other than alive. Thus, we can use the time we have to apply meaning of our own. Do what makes you happy, to a reasonable extent. Expand your mind. So what if your dream of constructing the largest scale model of The Taj Mahal using gum drops seems like a waste of time to someone else?
My basic point is, people search for meaning in life. That's why we have religion. We want to be given a purpose, a reason to get up in the morning instead of just putting a gun in our mouths and ending it. But "meaning" is a totally human created concept. As such, it cannot be found, only made. Thus, I feel any attempt to "find" meaning through spirituality is merely a false hope. People take it as the shortest route, but never truly arrive.
Does the WH really need these outlets, though? Obama's campaign, if nothing else, proved that other means can achieve better results. The Internet, most of all, really helped his campaign.
I'd like to ask, though, is reporting a negative story on a candidate more often than positive stories really a sign of bias?
Could it be that one side honestly, and I'm being serious here, made more gaffes than the other? McCain, by many large accounts of analysts (going by memory, correct me if you wish) made a lot more openly obvious mistakes. Obama made a lot of mistakes, too, don't get me wrong. And when he did, they hammered him for it. Hell, they gave one of his mistakes a -gate suffix. Bittergate.
I'd be more concerned with the press ignoring actual news rather than their failure to report that Obama, gasp, didn't wear an American flag lapel.
Because the Fort Hood shooter Muslim'd his victims to death, right?
No, wait, he shot them.
Legally, it's perfectly okay to be a very strict Muslim in the U.S.
What's NOT okay is shooting up people. Which is an act that is hardly restricted to radical muslims.
I certainly don't.
I have a myriad of complaints on NBC, MSNBC, CBS, and CNN, but "they're so blatantly biased towards the left that it physically causes me pain" isn't one of them.
George W Bush, MSNBC.
Hardly the first time.
The reason I, personally, have a problem with Beck is exactly what is portrayed by this website.
He never SAYS that "The Government is doing *Insert Evil Act Here*." He just implies it. A lot. With no facts at all. Then he cries, and claims he's scared, all attempting to make people think he cares about them.
Then he compares some government program to what Hitler would do. Then maybe he talks about how the government COULD, not that they are, but so easily COULD put something in the swine flu vaccine.
It's scare politics. It's all it really is. Sure, he throws out the occasional "well, I'm speaking of the Republicans, too, don't want to make this political," but by far it's obvious where his loyalties lie. So obvious even SNL mocks him for it. Which is saying something.
And yes, Olbermann can be bad. But that's one guy on one channel. And he does tend to have some factual basis for his opinions. And I don't see his stuff leaking into the rest of the MSNBC newscasting.
I disagree with your story. Clearly, the engineer in question didn't do ENOUGH thinking. I can easily see an uneducated person deciding to put a traffic light there with no second thoughts.
I think "common sense" is a misnomer. Never in my life have I ever found something to be both sensible and common.
What you have here is an example of laziness. Someone who didn't put in the time and effort to examine all the factors. Who didn't ask around for more information.
And personally, I find uneducated people to be every bit as smug and condescending as the educated. I feel it is a human trait. I know plenty of people who value age-old prejudices over anything else because "It's just common sense that ($_RACE_OR_ETHNICITY) is ($_GENERIC_INSULT)."
Long story short, no, there is no such thing as being "too educated." Because someone who trusts everything to go smoothly without taking into account all the variables has missed a large portion of their education.
To be fair, he did not say those who WATCH Glenn Beck. He said FANS OF Glenn Beck. There is a difference. I can certainly imagine someone watching his show for the same comedic reasons one watches people set themselves on fire on Youtube: People making asses of themselves is entertaining.
And isn't it Obama's First Amendment Right to call out FOX? It's his opinion.
The White House is not obligated by any law to talk to every and all parts of the press. They are not required to invite reporters in.
And when one network in particular shows blatant disregard for journalistic integrity, they are more than welcome to kick the bastards out.
And for the record, I don't watch any cable news channel. Not MSNBC, not CNN, and certainly not FOX.
He meant there are plenty of other dictatorships which are not communist, not that there are many communist countries that are not dictatorships.
Or to put it another way, you only get dictatorships and terrorists from extreme views.
You don't get moderates to justify taking away civil rights or to blow up crowded buildings.
All large scale communist societies became dictatorships.
Therefore, all dictatorships are communist in nature.
I'm glad to see you studied logic in school.
Well, one of the evil warlocks is drunk and drives his magic car into the magical untouchable bar.
There. Happy now?
"Only due to a deliberate decision by Nintendo to *not* increase production."
Which was a smart idea. To increase production would have required an additional factory. When they finally DO meet demand, they'd simply have an extra factory to maintain and lost money in building it. Their decision cost them an immediate access to the demand but secured a steady revenue stream for years.
No matter how "hardcore" gamers view Nintendo, it's hard to not respect their business savvy.
Here's a question: If I'm listening to a song stuck in my head, do they still want me to pay them for it?
I'm in total agreement. If anything, we need more warnings about kids playing the game for the adults. I play Team-Fortress 2 (PC version) regularly and rarely hear swearing or cursing from other players. But sometimes, a little kid gets on and is worse than every other chatter combined. It's annoying.