Blog

06-25-19 9:45 • Capitalism "vs" Socialism

Lawrence: The problem in this country is socialism versus capitalism.

The problem is that people do not understand either. Capitalism and socialism are not opposites. They are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism is only half of a system. Socialism is the other half. They can only work together.

A wise society would utilize both to the fullest.

Lawrence: Socialism is an economic theory or idea that states that the government or the state should be in charge of economic planning, production and distribution of goods.

I know that this is the prevailing understanding. However I would consider that "Sovetism," or control by planning council.

And I think most can agree it would not work.

I am proposing something different.

I have studied this, and I would say that socialism is not an economic system and is not trying to be. Socialism is a system of providing for social needs with social services.

Capitalism should manage planning, production and distribution of goods, exactly like it does right now.

Socialism is what you then implement as a system to care for your society by providing services to everyone like healthcare and education. This is very similar to what we do now also.

Our country uses both right now. Canada uses both right now. They happen to be balancing their capitalism with their socialism a bit better than we are. It is working for them. "Mixed Economies," part-captialist-part-socialist, are working in all the richest economies of the West.

Capitalism without socialism is a winner-take-all system which leaves nothing for the losers. Socialism without capitalism has no way to pay for itself. They must be used together. Neither will work alone.

06-21-19 4:28 • Getting It

Esmay: I really don't know if this can get through to a disbeliever. You just don't have what it takes to understand. If you did, you would believe like I do.

What, exactly, is meant by "disbeliever" here? Do you mean anybody who doesn't believe in God? Anybody who doesn't believe in Christianity? Anybody who doesn't believe in some Christian or Abrahamic tenets which you believe? Or, anybody who doesn't believe everything you believe?

Terry: Way to prove Esmay's point. Those who don't believe want to "nit-pick" these little things rather than seeing the bigger picture.

Who she is talking about here is not a "little thing."

Who is Esmay saying "doesn't get it"? Atheists? Or all non-theists? Including Buddhists?

Esmay: I just know disbelievers cannot experience God the way I experience Him.

This is the Colorblind Proposal.

You are suggesting that I lack a faculty or sense awareness that you possess. However, there is no evidence of this.

Esmay: No, I'm not! I mean, I didn't mean YOU. You chose to think I meant you.

You are talking to me. Who was I supposed to think you meant?

In any case, even if this had nothing to do with me, I don't think you are correct to apply this to the disbelievers you are "actually" referrring to, whoever they are, by saying that they have chosen to be spiritually colorblind. Even the atheists I know can feel all the same things you do.

There is no reason to accuse any normal person of having a spiritual deficiency - particularly not based on whether you think they are a "disbeliever."

06-18-19 4:28 • Partying in College

René Gade: Do you think kids should be able to test out of high school to move up to college? I think, only if they have perfect grades should they be allowed to. They have to prove they can do well in college.

All throughout grade school and high school I had terrible grades. I could pass the tests, but I never did homework or assignments. It was boring, it was stupid, no one ever explained to me any reason why I should participate. I learned way more just by reading than by listening to any of the lectures. I dropped out of high school.

I got my GED, and when I got to college it all turned around. I excelled, I had a 3.98 gpa, I was in Honors and graduated with Highest Distinction.

High school grades are a very poor measure of actual intelligence and ability. Kids should take the test if they think they can pass. Taking the test and passing it would be a good enough indicator of what has actually been learned.

I should point out that tests aren't always accurate either, however. Some very intelligent people don't test well. People should have the opportunity to show competence in other ways too, like with recommendations from educators, well-accomplished projects, etc.

René Gade: I have always been goal-oriented, and it was still very hard for me to keep on track in college, and not turn into a complete partier who flunked out.

Well, it's interesting how that worked out. I think the main reason my folks agreed to let me leave high school to try college is because in HS I was cutting class and hanging out in the smoking area with all the flunkies and stoners. I think my folks thought I would get a better class of friends in college who would stay away from drugs and not be losers.

When I got to college I did start hanging around with a better class of friends, and I learned a very interesting thing about them - the winners were all stoners too. The Phi Beta Kappas, the president of the Student Association, the lead tech in the computer lab, the Dean's List kids, the Valedictorian...all total potheads.

One of the great things I learned in college from these folks is how to party without jeopardizing my studies. There is room in life for both.

06-15-19 4:28 • Is Belief Like Love?

Lydia: I am not smart enough to come up with a reason why I believe in God and Jesus. I believe because I want to, lol.

That seems like a reason to me.

But of course, this reason can be examined like any other. It is interesting to consider the reasons why you *want* to believe this particular interlocking set. If you had been born and raised in the Hindu culture, what you wanted to believe would almost certainly include names like Krishna and Ganesh instead of God and Jesus. If you had been born in Greece around 400 BC, what you wanted to believe in might involve Zeus and Apollo, Hera and Aphrodite. Rather than praying and going to church, what you wanted to do might involve worshipping at a shrine. It's important to keep in mind that practically ALL the specifics are only culture-deep.

Lydia: It's like trying to come up with a scientific reason why I love my husband.

Science has come up with a lot of scientific reasons why you love your husband. It's not a huge mystery. But just because it involves hormones and pheromones and evolutionary biology doesn't make it any less magnificent. How could it?

I'm sure understanding the reality of the divine would not take away the slightest from its magnificence.

Lydia: You have faith in the role of scientific inquiry, rational inquiry. You have faith in that process. You are as much a man of faith as I am.

Ugh, this is another conceit of religious debate that I find completely unwarranted.

There is a huge difference between thinking something is true because there is evidence of it and having faith that something is true in the absence of evidence.

Scientific inquiry has demonstrated that it works because it produces results that work. You don't need faith to think that. It is readily observable.

There is nothing observable to confirm articles of faith like "Jesus was the Son of God."

They are not equivalent.

Lydia: Maybe I've missed out on being completely informed on the other side, but so what?

Misinformation creates error. It's not always very significant on a personal level. But when large portions of the society are misinformed it produces a lot of error for the society.

Lydia: There will always be error, no matter which side it is coming from.

Yes. But error can be greatly reduced with accuracy.

No understanding is perfect, but some understandings can be shown to be far more accurate than others. They produce error, but much less.

Lydia: I'd have to conclude that everyone's choice regarding beliefs can be a detriment to society.

To what degree? Buddhism can hardly be argued to be a detriment to society. If a 2,500 year history almost entirely lacking in violence is any indication, some choices are clearly far, far less detrimental than others.

Not all belief choices are equivalent.

Lydia: One side will always claim the other side is misinformed.

Sometimes this claim can be supported with evidence.

Lydia: There is never going to be peace in religion or the belief systems as a whole so...

So let's just give up.

Lydia: ...since error is just part of life, and since this life isn't perfect this isn't even a debate. Error will always exist.

True.

I guess your response to this depends on whether you want your society to flounder along, causing great harm with great error, with no way to determine where the error is occurring or how to fix it...or, if you want your society to utilize a system that provides for error correction and improvement, allowing for a gradual reduction in error and the corresponding suffering.

Yes, error will always exist, but that is hardly an excuse to ignore it. You can work for less error.

Lydia: Regarding religion/belief, I don't think one side is informed and the other is misinformed.

I'm not even sure who you are referring to as the "sides" here. Atheist vs. Theist? Christian vs. Hindu? Protestant vs. Cathlolic? Science vs. Religion?

"Sides," like people, are usually informed about some things and misinformed about other things.

However there is such a thing as being well-informed. Some people and some positions seem to be better informed than others, as demonstrated by verification.

Lydia: To be quite honest, I have to wonder if all these "different gods" over time, since human history began, aren't really just different cultural expression of the same Divine.

They probably are. I think that would include even entirely non-theistic spiritual concepts, like Nirvana.

I would certainly not debate the existence of an observable spiritual reality. It seems obvious. However the specifics become debatable fast as they diverge from the observable.

Lydia: As for loving my husband - I don't think it's so simple.

I don't recall saying it was simple. It is amazingly complex.

Lydia: The chemistry can be duplicated, but the essence of the person cannot.

Whoa, I never implied it was reducible to chemistry. It seems to be the product of emergent systems.

Lydia: Science still hasn't come up with what makes a person a unique, individual personality. Even identical twins have different personalities.

Science cannot explain everything about human attraction but it doesn't mean there is some part of it that is magic, or fundamentally incomprehensible to humans. It seems to be naturally occurring. As it is studied, more can be learned about it. I would hardly consider it beyond possible understanding.

There are reasons why you love your husband. Maybe you should have as good of reasons to believe what you believe about God.

06-14-19 4:28 • Swagger

MAGA-KAG: Trump in 2020! Trump is Keeping America Great. He is focused on America, and how the country can regain its swagger on the world stage.

ConservaMom: I agree! What did Obama ever do to for us internationally? I mean, he won the Nobel Peace Prize, but what for?

Because it is meaningless. The fact that Seals agreed to be tortured doesn't make it not torture.

The Seals are waterboarded in a torture-resistence training program called SERE - Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape.

Malcome Nance is a counter-terrorism expert who oversaw this training program and personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of Seals. Nance has this to say about waterboarding:

____________________

1. Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period. There is no way to gloss over it or sugarcoat it. It has no justification outside of its limited role as a training demonstrator. Our service members have to learn that the will to survive requires them accept and understand that they may be subjected to torture, but that America is better than its enemies and it is one’s duty to trust in your nation and God, endure the hardships and return home with honor.

2. Waterboarding is not a simulation. Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

Call it “Chinese Water Torture,” “the Barrel,” or “the Waterfall,” it is all the same. Whether the victim is allowed to comply or not is usually left up to the interrogator. Many waterboard team members, even in training, enjoy the sadistic power of making the victim suffer and often ask questions as an after thought. These people are dangerous and predictable and when left unshackled, unsupervised or undetected they bring us the murderous abuses seen at Abu Ghraieb, Baghram and Guantanamo.

________________

Marylin: If there is a God, why do bad things happen to good people? In fact, why do bad things happen, period?