defacto7
defacto7's JournalI've posted this before and I'll post it again.
It's not what the public associates themselves with or disassociates with that counts, it's who's in control. If the people were in control of government like we expect it to be, then the logic of this OP may be reasonable. But we aren't in control anymore. It's the power of money, organization and national/international business interests that are in control. Remember the cliché, "possession is 90% of the law". We the people possess nothing.
To hell with both major parties as organized entities that represent certain factions of the people as well as the non-parties, the new parties, whatever... we the people have to take back our country, and if we have to sign a contract with the devil to do it, then that's what we do. The America we once knew or thought we knew doesn't exist anymore. Smoke and mirrors.
We have one more chance in 2016 just to start the process of forming a progressive America. 2014 is gone... done... over... we do not have 2014 as a starting point anymore. They have had 50 years of patience getting to this level of control. You want to shake your laurels of progressive agenda victories? Don't hold your breath. We are not in control... our little victories can be reversed with little resistance if the extreme right wing hold the power in the SCOTUS, Congress and the White House. If you think adolescent attitudes toward politics will win the war, then you think spitting in a grizzly bears face won't get you eaten. If you are young enough to think all those old guys up there in high political office are messing with your stuff.... they were you... and you will be them.
Associate with whatever entity has the possibility to grow strong enough, soon enough, to take back what we have lost to those who have bought us, brainwashed us and groomed us. Otherwise we'll just choke on that smoke and watch our reflection disappear in dreams of revolution that will never be.
If you can take it...
This is what I have been saying for years... to and empty room.
If you not able to handle the truth, that's OK, because that part doesn't matter....
What does matter is that we still keep trying because if there is a small light in the heart of humankind it must shine for as long as possible. We really won't be here for many generations, but what time there is left, those of us few open-minded, naive humans with illusions of agency will defy the destroyers of our kind, exhaling to the last winds of life saying that we were, and could have been.
The author is both right and wrong.
From my vantage point the assessment of our global infrastructure is on the mark, the assessment of sustainability is also within realistic bounds. It's also important to make necessary changes to "everything" if we want to survive as a species or even have a viable planet. The error is not in the assessment or the attitude, where it fails is in a reality that no one wants to face or admit; the proposed answer to the dilemma will never happen. The human race or civilization as we know it has reached a point where failure is imminent.
After a point probably in the 18th century or maybe in ancient times depending on your take, we were destined to die out and humanity will do that sooner than later. With our best efforts we can extend that demise to a point or maybe not. This is not to say we give up and die, that is not my point. We as a species fight to live and that is part of our evolution but it is also what makes us more redundant as an earth organism. We fight too much, we take and do not give back. Our brain probably developed too quickly for some catastrophic reason and we have never evolved to fit the scheme of successful animals. With the size of the population, the extremes in ideology, technology that is beyond our ability to control, inability to be part of the whole, and no global will to survive that trumps momentary greed, we do not have the ability to be more than a blip in global time.
The ocean is where life began and the ocean will reclaim us because of our shortsightedness. The ocean will destroy us just as it wiped out 99.999% of all life forms at least 5 times in earth's history through chemical changes. We have accelerated its normal meter and all we can hope and work for is an extension. But that hope and work is more an ideological attempt to apologize than realistic hope for revitalization of a planet that is virtually trashed to hell.
If this is too much to take, it's understandable. We are compelled to feel by left brain evolution that our human existence is eternal and for some that is a good way to find peace and to stay the course. But for those of us that want to see ourselves for what we really are and the planet for what it really is in the cosmos, this less than hopeful scenario is necessarily our lost game.
The Bible isn't even a work
let alone most important. It's a disjointed mishmash of mostly badly translated and hacked over crib notes from more writers and re-writers and medicinal fixers than any other work in history. In that, it is the most important example of bad literature ever. As far as influence, it can't be denied that such horribly written literature would have a great effect on centuries of societies that had either no choice but to use it under duress, use it as prime allegory for public response, or as a compass toward the non-divine.
From a literary standpoint, the Bible just may be the most interruptive conglomeration of anonymous writing that has caused so much anti-intellectualism over nonsense of all Western Literature.
I can agree with that.
I think most of US history has been a fight for control between the people and the powerful. The government most of us were taught about in 5th grade has in reality never exited. But as a dream of possibilities within any political system it was a gallant effort by those who had idealistic hopes for humanity and it could have been quite a strong and useful stepping stone toward freedom, peace, equality and justice. It could never have been the final structure of human culture and would have been superseded by better alternatives. But the direction we are going now is the product of greed and the intent of a powerful few. If it continues in this direction, our US version of democracy has failed.
How can a locust swarm
that's a regularly occurring 6 to 20 years phenomenon be stopped? I've never heard of it. They are both a natural occurrence and a consequence of bad land management.
Madagascar is one of the most beautiful and most damaged places on the planet. Our closest living primate ancestor lives on that island probably blown there in a hurricane eons ago.. the Lemur.
It's a terrible thing when a natural phenomenon gets out of control because of human mistakes, but trying to stop a swarm of locusts conjures up many more stupid mistakes like spraying untold numbers of acres of land with insecticide.
The other thing is relating it to a plague like in biblical terms is not helpful to understanding reality. Many take it seriously and do strange and wicked things to appease some god. The locusts don't damage the earth more the humans do and unfortunately we have to look for a way to balance that Eco system not continue the same practices that are far worse than some bugs do.
Global male violence is an outrage
and I will no longer stand for it. I have been fighting that fight in my own little world for decades. I do agree.
Where I do not agree is that a simple fallacy cannot be corrected without a large contingency appearing in many venues to derail their own threads for the purpose of stopping voices from speaking, then projecting the derailment.
You say, "If you don't try to stop those things, then you are part of the problem." That can also be interpreted as trying to stop the the whiplash effect when an atrocity or unfair condition occurs by not falling silent when an affected side demands it. It's the common fallacy of "two wrongs make a right". They do not.
We must not alienate our supporters because part of them happen to be blank . If we cannot hold up humankind as a single commonality that we have, together, all of us, then we fail to understand the atrocities we share and will never be able to stop them for lack of unity and understanding.
You have posed a very respectful honest question.
and that is all it takes. Respectful honest questions receiving respectful honest answers. That's the nutshell of it.
Now for the reality of it:
Most atheists have radar for logical or simple fallacies or they should. If an answer to a religious or philosophical question arises and it is purely illogical or a simple fallacy, atheists are likely to challenge it. Challenging beliefs with logical corrections is not something theists are comfortable with, but to an atheist or any skeptic logic and facts are what makes the universe what it is and so far it has never failed. Yes, logical conclusions at one time or another have failed, but not having faith to bind us to preserving a dogma, an atheist, a scientist, or skeptic can evolve with the change in facts and observations; the non-believer can change his mind and as a matter of fact, we are compelled to do so. We cannot hold on to an idea that has been found factually false or without evidential merit. The faith of a believer must not have fact or evidence by definition.
This alone creates a chasm that is very hard to bridge. When atheists challenge faiths, it is tantamount to heresy to the faithful. When believers challenge facts or propose acceptance of lack of evidence, it's only an argument to be challenged to an atheist. No believer in a faith wants to be corrected by facts because in doing so it nullifies their faith therefore they have to do everything in their power to destroy the facts and the fact provider even to the point of ad hominem or straw man tactics and that just won't fly with a non-theist. See my signature.
Being atheist I have no problem listening to the story of a person's faith or belief. Personally, I can just listen and not challenge it. But in an open forum there are other non-believers who will challenge it. It's not an attack, it's an open forum and people say what they need to say. There's the believer's point of view which must be unchangeable and acceptable under the banner of a deity, and there's the non-believer's point of view that cannot accept faith, I.E. beliefs without tangible evidence. If both sides can offer their positions without feeling insulted or have the need to make personal attacks on the other, I think we would get along fine. But as long as there is offense at being wrong, either side, then there will always be a problem.
Speaking for myself, I thrive on being wrong and I think most mature atheists feel the same. If I am logically incorrect I am happy to have been corrected because I can move on with new information that is better than what I had before. THAT is the atheist's path. If there is a God de facto, I will be compelled to change my position and become... not a believer, but knower and live in the knowledge and fact of a tangible God.
D7
Dreaming of Guillotines and lynch mobs
I feel the sentiment and the anger in the discussions of revolution and retribution against the 1%, I understand it and share it. Some are serious, some are half serious, and some just joke along, but one way or another, things are going to break.... If the scenario of seek and destroy is the outcome I wouldn't expect the return of America the beautiful anytime in the next century.
Unfortunately, we have to conclude that the .1% are wealthy enough to run. They will exchange their monetary wealth for real property, commodities and hard assets which they will take with them. The reality is, only the middle wealth will take the heat and the masses will simply fight among themselves until it gets so bad that someone calling him/herself a political saint, a savior, a prophet, a god, a Stalin, a Hitler, Satan, even Jesus will emerge, the tired masses will run at anything that looks like hope, those of faith will have delusions of the end of times...
and the wheel goes round and round and round and.....
We had better find more practical solutions, but don't ask me what the solutions are. I don't know.
On the surface
it's good news.
When it comes to the part that seems to slide by most people, the part about money spent for a political positions, the part we seem to take for granted without thinking about the overall ramifications, none of it is good news.
Now that we know where the money comes from.... There are questions (rhetorical or not).
Q:
-Where does this money go that is spent to defend out position?
-Where does the money go that is spent to defend our constitutional rights?
-Who receives the millions upon millions of dollars that we the people, or the oligarchs, or the corporations, spend to get the results demanded?
- WHY does it cost more than cab fare to be heard?
- WHY are tens even hundreds of millions of dollars spent for what should be FREE speech? FREE opinion? The FREE will of the people?
THIS is the important issue; it's not that we have the honor of spending more than our antagonists, it's not that we were able to buy the winning lottery ticket that buys us the bingo ball that may or may not give us what is our right as citizens to begin with, it's that we have to pay anything at all.
When We the People have to buy a chance to be heard, we are blithely writing democracy's obituary. The United States that was envisioned and fought for by our ancestors is being dropped into the dustbin of history.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
.............................. and now a word from our sponsor.....................
Profile Information
Name: Defacto7Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Portland, OR
Home country: not sure anymore
Current location: depends on which proxy I'm using
Member since: Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:44 AM
Number of posts: 13,485
