# Some beefs on legality and My opinion of the nature of God



## Admiral Ryouhei (Jan 2, 2007)

-_-  *sigh*  just got in a debate with my mother over drugs and religion, she's a fervent Roman Catholic, I'm confirmed in the faith, but am questioning everything I've been raised on, also going through something that is depression or very like it symptom-wise, plus possible ADHD, which might just be depression... you get my confusion?

Drugs and their Moral/Ethical Legality and the Societal skew on good/evil~

Okay, big words.

Simply, pot is view as bad/dangerous/gateway/brain damaging drug, my friend who smokes it says otherwise, that it... (bad with remembering and wordage so give the construction and choice of words a lot of slack (i.e. 'nuke explosion physics') deathjet-sama knows what I'm talking about)  , he says that he thinks about things with more... clarity and that, from my understanding his mental processes suffer from reduced interference by his physical senses (if you think about it, the material muddles our understanding of the mental and vice versa, like understanding math, if you weren't bogged down by the numbers and functions and rules and whatever else gives you a hard time in understanding the pure mental aspect of math you would be a veritable genius in the math department)

so, the problem is not addiction, except maybe to the increased logical reasoning, is that there is, from my point of view with no experience and second-hand knowledge, less moral/ethical confusion of getting to the root of an aspect, so, it's not inherently bad, but bad can come of you having a decreased ethical/moral attachment to your actions
-
On the other hand, many people have horribly skewed morals and ethics centered around themselves

=
The biggest problem [I have] with marijuana being illegal is that there are two more lethal and damaging drugs on the legal market, yes, tobacco and alcohol.

Cigarettes have filters on them, for the inhaling smokers, but what about that trail of smoke coming of the unfiltered end?  and we've all heard the sermons about the contents of that smoke, chemicals found in car exhaust, rat poison and various other nasties, so who likes inhaling car exhaust (gasoline does smell good, that demi-euphoric smell always at the gas station, sort of like hickory smoke, smells good, just don't go sucking it in), so, smokers, if you smoke, you might as well be taking that nicotine and taking a puff/toke (same difference guys) off the back end of a running car, have fun.  also, there's the factor that a nuclear power plant emits significantly less damaging radiation (don't want to say hard or soft cause I don't know what the defining factors are), so the increase in cancer, maybe it's due to smoking and second-hand smoke?

alcohol, a good disinfectant, chemical weapons for microbes, and we're chugging it like dehydrated and starving horses that haven't seen water for days.  really, kids at my school were talking about going to Cancun or wherever for one of our breaks, and drinking, I asked them why they do it, and told them I thought the stuff tasted too bad to even consider drinking enough to be effected, and why they want to get drunk.

The answer: 'I do it for the feeling'

Even though it tastes really bad? : 'yeah'

They even told me it was a good choice that I never drink, so, the addicted tell me drinking is bad even though they do it, but it's legal, if it's legal it must be safe, no.

personally, I think the drink is... or was, used by the upper classes to keep the middle and lower classes where they are, of course you have the select few that make it up to the top, some fall back down but a few of the few that make it stay, thus the upper classes are touched inevitably by the peon-suppressing liquid, now we don't remember.

of course, this could just be conspiratorial fancy running through my head, but as the saying goes 'does thinking you're the last sane man[person, for the politically correct] on earth make you insane?'

==============
And now for the religion, oh, you thought I was done? lawlz, you make me laugh ^_^

==============

So, I’ve come to doubt that there is a god, or that the god that IS, is not the god we THINK he... sorry, He, not the God we THINK He IS.

First theory of 'there is a god': 'I think therefore I AM' following this simple but confusing statement, I theorize that THE ALMIGHTY GOD [blah blah blah] CREATOR OF [blah] thought himself into being.

'That's utterly impossible!' you yell at me, however, was it not impossible, and viewed by our ancestors to be folly, to strive for the heavens, Icarus died because he flew too high, that gods indirectly smote him down via Apollo's/Helios' charge, the flaming ball we call the sun, that he dragged across the sky, which created day (an innuendo to the people not to think above their place in the societal hierarchy)

so, we have no evidence that an omni-potent or super-intelligent and powerful entity can spontaneously exist from nothing by simply thinking 'I am' when he doesn’t exist in the first place to think it.

Okay, I see your point, but, what if (of course what if, there's no other way to go, everything is based or was based on what if, what if there is someone that looks like us who drives a chariot with mighty horses across the blue dome above us and the chariot he rides drags that bright yellow thing that brings light and warmth to us, thus giving logic to why that big yellow ball moves on its own?) you see, the basis of thought and reason is reliant on us asking what if questions, in fact, it's the only way we progress and have progressed this far, that is what makes the human animal superior to other animals, we can look at a bunch of things that aren't visibly related and say 'hey, why did the apple hit me... why do apples fall... why do things fall instead of floating... what if there this force that we can't see that pulls everything downwards to the earth?'

okay, so it doesn't immediately start with 'what if?'s but the progression depends upon interconnection based upon logical reason (sometimes illogical, depending on the societal view of what is logical and reasonable at the time) and the eventual end result of a 'what if?' question that attempts to explain the possible connection between to seemingly unrelated events, if we cannot wonder 'why?' then our 'what if?'s will be pure flight of fancy and we may stumble upon something progressive eventually, but the high random content that will be subject to societal public opinion need to enact progression will allow for many incorrect results to be accepted simply because they sound good and many correct results to be discarded because it just doesn't sound right

expanding upon that, we could never really affirm random 'what if?'s since we could not use our 'why?' to make the connections

so, without 'why?' there is no 'what if?', and without 'what if?' there is no theory, fact or conclusion, we would simply be slightly more intelligent animals discovering things like a stick to harvest termites rather randomly, instead of the scientific method we would have something like 'hey, what's this?' and then 'oh, this is useful' and most likely 'based on what I see, how does this work?' and finally 'hey, guys, check out what I can do!'

thus our progression will be limited to our own limited human senses and ability to use abstract visualization to gain the technology lying naked before us.

thus, monkeys are at the beginnings of the second level of intelligence (using tools that fall in our laps and recreating the tool by basic means) while we are at the third (questioning the function of our tools and using reasoning, logical questioning and thusly-based experimenting) and fourth levels of intelligence (making and using tools to expand our ability to gather as much information in as many formats as possible and using the third level of intelligence to further increase our capacity to understand the universe and expand our hand farther our from our sheltered nursery that we call Earth)

God could be the at a fifth level (or higher), where such things as believing oneself into being is possible and explainable by the natural laws and such an event has a mathematical equation to explain it to the fourth level, however what such a level of intelligence requires to achieve is unknown to me as I am on the fourth level with the rest of you.

to explain it in simpler terms, think of one dimension as a line, two dimensions as a flat plane (if the terminology/words are lost on you, think of a sheet of paper with no thickness), three dimensions, even though we live in such and environment... think of Jell-O with stuff inside it (oranges, and broccoli, and pecans, and walnuts... you get the idea), obviously the object cannot move, because it only has three spatial dimensions, to achieve a 3-D model of our universe we require a fourth dimension, time, thus the Jell-O becomes mutable (pronounced 'mute' not 'mutt') and the suspended objects can move through their universe

thusly, any universe that has living entities, requires at least one dimension of time, to have physical entities requires at least one time dimension and one space dimension

following string theory, such universes could also have more smaller 'curled up' dimensions, however, contrary to how you think they would be curled up to be smaller than accessible by their inhabitants, the 'extra' dimensions do not exist in one location within the larger dimensions, instead they are 'curled up' at every possible point inside the larger dimensions (the easiest way to visualize a single 'extra' spatial dimension is to take a 2-D 'grid' to represent our universe, the intersections of the grid-lines make up all the existable points in that dimension (~obviously there are an infinite number of points on a line, but to visualize that would be too difficult, so assume that the grid-lines are the only points and the empty squares do not exist~) so, after that long-winded simplification for your brain's sake, at each intersection of the grid-lines (~Mind you, the infinite 'vertical' and 'horizontal' lines only represent two dimensions~) at each intersection there is a very(veryveryvery) tiny (~smaller than the smallest possible length you can think of, the smallest small limit is Planck length which is really freakin' small, it is proposed that electrons and the quarks that make up protons and neutrons are one or two-dimensional strings, which are the base material of everything, they are the smallest (and largest, depending on the energy they posses) things that make up all of everything in our universe, they are the end of the line, strings are made up of, strings, a string is a string, that is its name and material the only differences between individual strings is their size and corresponding energy/‘charge’, their type, open strings basically a line, thusly they are Planck length at their smallest, and closed strings, which are circles instead of lines and their circumference is larger than Planck length (@I think...@) because their diameter must be Planck length, and their vibrational pattern which determines which properties they manifest, from electron to proton to the theoretical closed-string graviton (~and aspect that explains why it seems so weak compared to other principle particles~)~))

So, now (after getting lost in all that) all of the infinite number of intersecting points in our 2-D universe are each populated by a single one or two-dimensional rings that vibrate through all possible dimensions in the universe in the same exact way because they are all the same string (~I hear the clamor of squares trying to fit into circular holes~)

‘So,’ you all ask ‘after I/we read all that, you’re telling us that our universe is made up of strings which have no constituent materials (a.k.a. they are one-piece things and cannot be broken into smaller parts) and that there is a set selection of them’

I interrupt you to say that, yes, there is a set variety of strings, but the quality that makes them different from one another is the way they vibrate (~and the amount of energy they have which influences their size and shape (@ This factor is irrelevant to understanding the basic string theory @)~)

‘So,’ you continue ‘these strings that make up all the matter and dimensions and time and whatever else we don’t know about depends on exactly how they vibrate’

I nod and say, yes, the way the world and life as we know it is because a bunch of miniscule ‘humming’ strings and the way they hum.

‘So, where is God in all of this?’ you retort, having read this extremely long rant on a theory that isn’t even proven fully by the scientists that have been working on this for ‘God knows how long’

I reply, yes, it is still a semi-‘what if?’, but remember that ‘what if?’s are how we progress.  Using the fourth level of intelligence I described earlier allows us to effectively use ‘what if?’s to further our knowledge with technology that is becoming more advanced because of ‘why?’ and ‘what if?’ and third aspect could considered as ‘how?’, and that is the means by which we turn a ‘what if?’ into an ‘is’

Now, as to its relation to ‘I there a God or not?’ I say, I don’t know, but I can give you my ‘what if?’s which came from my ‘why’s?', which were brought about by my internal turmoil about this thing that I’m going through, previously ascribed to ADHD, depression, or possibly self-preservation instinct, I don’t know which it is, neither does my psychologist or my psychiatrist.

What I do know is that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, or moreover, The Bible teaches (not sure on which is what, but the following statement is concrete) they teach that God, The almighty entity that made the universe and personally created us with love and care (@ Whether through instant creation or the indirect creation of evolution (~which would affirm the ‘levels of intelligence’ I described earlier and also say that each genetic line on this planet and others has the chance to reach our own and farther levels of intelligence~) @) that God is timeless, under string theory that means He exists on a dimensional level where forward-time (~basically the time we all experience as the ticking of a clock, thus it is plausible that a sideways-time (i.e. alternate paths to the occurrence of events, allowing for free will and foreordained events at the same time) and backwards-time (which allows object to ‘travel’ to before a certain period in their ‘time-stream’ (@ however, this introduces several paradoxes and logical quandaries that require all time travel to be conducted through sideways-time as well (i.e. if you affected ‘your’ time-stream to where you were never born and/or the events that occurred to create your personality and/or the events that occurred to bring about the human ability to use time-travel, thusly the time you return to is a alternate branch of history that is the same as yours until you arrive then it diverges and allows you to meddle in time and perform the grandfather paradox and your actions not be affected by the occurrence, you could even kill yourself before you left for ‘the past’ but it would not have changed what you did) and now that that confusion has been dealt with, time to return to the original topic @))~) time is too small a dimension for Him to be affected by, also He may exist in our three spatial dimensions but at the same time exist in other dimensions (this is very roundabout and confusing to even me to describe) that are larger than ours, thus we should be knowledgeable of them but we aren’t, or perhaps God is the universe itself and such a massive entity is small enough to fit inside our three spatial dimensions but as a whole smaller than the time dimension we experience, an off-shoot of this is that the universe makes up the physical representation of a super-dimensional or extra dimensional intelligence that is higher than the described fourth level.

Thus, as God thought himself into being the spontaneous creation of such a massive power and intellect created what we know as the Big Bang, his physical form being created to accommodate His spontaneous self-creation.

Since He is timeless in the sense that the dimensions of time do not apply to Him, it is safe to be able to say that God had a beginning, though it cannon be considered a beginning because time is not big enough to be applied to His ‘birth’ as it would seem.

So now, we have another problem, if God was ‘born’ as I say (or something like it to the same end-effect) and his ‘body’ is the four dimensions we currently reside in along with all the other string-made matter, which is also God, thus the Bible is correct in saying we are all part of God as He is part of us, technically He is all of us, but to allow that we must look at ourselves, we have individual cells, they are aware of the cells around them and messages sent via the whole community of cells that is your body through chemical and electrical means, now it begins to make sense that we are part of God yet each one is not God in himself, because ‘if the ear were the whole body, then where would the sight be?  If the whole body was an eye for sight, then where would the smell be?’ and so on and so forth as is stated in one of the bible passages.

So, just as we are aware of our cells and their functions, so is ‘God’ aware of us and the paths we ‘should’ take naturally, and just like cells having errors in their genetic code and mutating into a harmful function, do sentient (i.e. entities of the third level of intelligence and higher) beings of these dimensions have ‘errors’, meaning not that they have irreparable damage that cannot be fixed short of removing the ‘bad’ (~think removal of cancer~) instead, our personal feelings and ‘incorrect’ conclusions lead us towards something we think we may want but after we achieve it we realize that it is not what we need or wanted but what we thought was right for us, so sentient error is less damaging than genetic error which is conversely less damaging to the ‘whole’ of God because it only impacts an absolutely tiny piece of himself, like a cell having a tiny error or wound that compounds its personal function but will eventually heal and/or be bred out of future product cells during mitosis (the one that retains the error or wound will die or fail before the other ‘sibling’ cell, which will most likely reproduce, or if the error becomes worse down the generations the line will eventually die and thus there is no more problem and the cells have most likely improved to resist the mutation or wound from happening again, aside from a slightly lower cell count than a healthy line would have all is well in the end) so will the human species (@ not race, to me there is no race difference, just a different vibrational pattern in a string different from one another through simple necessity of its form @) and all species eventually access the higher levels of intelligence, thusly God will evolve because of this, as long as his intelligent constituents don’t commit the equivalent of a cellular stress-induced self-destruct

Even when a single cell kills itself due to internal and external stresses there are always more cells to take their place and pick up the slack.

So, now that I’ve effectively diminished all human life on earth to a single cell on terms of worth, the question arises, ‘if we are able to perceive that ‘God’ exists and is about as concerned (as you, Ryou, say) as much as we are concerned about the welfare of our individual cells then why do our cells not perceive us?’

Well, maybe they do perceive that they make up a human body, without whom they would not have the purpose they have, of course the possibility that a simple cell would have such cognitive ability to recognize that its life is, for all intensive purposes, disposable and easily replaceable is extraordinarily minute, like the comparison of an inch to a single Planck length (very, very small, as discussed earlier)

But I do think that the reason the cells do perform their singular duties tirelessly, aside from the fact that they don’t have anything but the most basic of instincts and prescribed behaviors to follow, is that they have some form of sentience that lets their simple brains made of DNA that they are working, producing, fighting, and dieing for the existence of something capable of far greater and more immense things than each one alone can hope to do (@ this is giving simple organisms more credit than most would even consider, some might view it as overtly and romantically foolish @)

So, the message of the Roman Catholic faith is that we must set aside our differences, ambitions, and individuality (to an extent, not talking about being drones, but more like the ideal communist vision, of everyone working to supply for the needs of others and none being better than the next as all are essential to maintain homeostasis in the conglomerate organism and to produce similar or exact organisms to spread out and to eventually become an even bigger organism capable of greater intelligence and feats than the constituents could find possible)

So, do I believe, yes I do.  Do I believe what The Good Book says, not literally.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 2, 2007)

Drugs : The problem _*is *_addiction.

God : At least you are thinking about it - don't stop.


----------



## dwndrgn (Jan 2, 2007)

Drugs: the problem isn't addiction (you cannot become addicted if you never try it so saying that you are addicted and therefore it isn't your fault is a cop out), it is the harm you can cause to yourself and others.  The only thing that legalization does for drugs is allow regulation.  This helps in some ways and does nothing for others.  Marijuana will never be legalized because it will be too hard to regulate since it is easily grown by anyone, anywhere.  

As far as most drugs (legal and otherwise) are concerned, my feelings are extremely harsh and I'll not go into them here.

God: if he exists and you believe, wonderful for you.  If he doesn't and you believe, wonderful for you.  Why should anyone care otherwise?


----------



## Joel007 (Jan 2, 2007)

I agree about Tobacco and Alcohol (or at least the nicotine content of cigarettes). Although if they were made illegal there would be riots of addicts, and a flourishing black market to increase the pressure on the already underfunded police departments. Drugs for "recreational purposes" should probably be replaced with more healthy recreation 

No two people have the exact same image of God in their heads. The idea of a being which ecompasses (even exceeds) and has created all known and unknown things, including time and space, is too big to fit into our limited minds. We tend to focus on a single aspect (power, purity, love, etc) and therefore create a mental picture of a God with character flaws. 
If God is to be God, he must be perfect in every way. Since we can't imagine that to any great detail he will remain a mystery. Just like other people remain a mystery, even if you have known them your entire life. 
If we have God in mind as someone of less than perfect intelligence and wisdom, the persona we have in our mind is not God.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 2, 2007)

dwndrgn said:


> Drugs: the problem isn't addiction (you cannot become addicted if you never try it so saying that you are addicted and therefore it isn't your fault is a cop out), it is the harm you can cause to yourself and others.  The only thing that legalization does for drugs is allow regulation.  This helps in some ways and does nothing for others.  Marijuana will never be legalized because it will be too hard to regulate since it is easily grown by anyone, anywhere.
> 
> As far as most drugs (legal and otherwise) are concerned, my feelings are extremely harsh and I'll not go into them here.
> 
> God: if he exists and you believe, wonderful for you.  If he doesn't and you believe, wonderful for you.  Why should anyone care otherwise?



I take your point dwndrgn but if the addictive drugs weren't addictive then they would be easy to control at a personal level. People could judge the harm that they are doing to themselves and others in a rational way. The problem with addiction is that it takes away freedom of choice. 

That's why I'm against legalisation. Legalisation won't give freedom of choice - it will remove it.

There was a heroin addict on late night BBC TV a number of years ago on a panel discussing legalisation of drugs. There was an MP who wanted it legalise "because it was a matter of freedom of choice". She (the addict) laughed, "Do you think I am free to choose?" And that is exactly my point.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Jan 3, 2007)

whoa on the drug debate, it's not about legalisation, it's about why they make two really dangerous ones legal and leave the (admittedly easily grown) 'safe' one illegal

In my opinion, no drugs should be legal, of course, we saw what good prohibition did

I think I'm going to defy the political game and make my own nation... that'll be hard cause all the land is taken, think I'll throw a dart on the world map and see where to take over


----------



## Delvo (Jan 4, 2007)

The difference between alcohol & tobacco and other drugs is history. Those two were in use long before the drug laws we have now were written, and were embedded in the culture by that time, so they got grandfathered in.

But prohibition didn't go the way it's usually said to go. It was failing at first because the police were laboring under stupid rules about the weapons and other equipment and tactics they could use, so they could deal with petty individual criminals but were out-armed and overpowered against large criminal organizations. After the rules changed, the police bought new stuff and got more effective, and the crimes that the big crime organizations were behind fell sharply. Also, the behavior of the alcohol smugglers soon became comparable to that of modern drug smugglers, which the people distanced themselves from in disgust. By the time prohibition was cancelled, it had actually started working; the argument that it wasn't had been based on years-old and by then out-of-date information, but after the decision to cancel it was made, and after Hollywood had made the decision that that concept made better movies, there was essentially no more public acknowledgement of the more up-to-date information about what had really happened... so now what's essentially an "urban/modern myth" has ended up as the single biggest argument used by those who say drugs should all be legalized.


----------



## Hawkshaw_245 (Jan 4, 2007)

I don't think of drugs in moral terms.
I think of drugs in terms of health risks.

Pot/marijuana/cannabis is no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. In fact, I'm unaware of any study linking grass-smoking to cancer, cirrhosis of the liver or any other severe illness.

Excessive, prolonged use of ANYTHING might have health risks, or cause illness in the long term. But compared to other illicit drugs available, it is pretty benign.

I've no idea what God(s) think of it. He created it, so it must have a purpose in the grand scheme, unlike the synthesized garbage mankind created, like heroin, crack, crystal meth. etc..which can destroy your internal organs, make you paranoid, leave you impotent, frak up your cardiovascular sytem...

I don't advocate smoking pot, but you can do a whole lot worse.


----------



## Pointfinder (Jan 4, 2007)

InfoFacts - Marijuana


According to this site marijuanna smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Jan 4, 2007)

> In the brain, THC connects to specific sites called cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory,* thought, concentration*, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.
> 
> The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate


 
My friend describes the exact opposite symptoms listed as short-term effects, but he is only one person, and I've heard of people who are better at doing things when drunk, so, whatever. (I'll ask him next hour and give... correct 'data' on the short-term effects)

So, do they take their test results from animals alone, or are there some human volunteers?

okay, look at this paragraph, I've highlighted some important words



> Even infrequent abuse *can* cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, *often* accompanied by a heavy cough. Someone who smokes marijuana regularly *may* have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers do, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency to obstructed airways. Smoking marijuana *possibly* increases the likelihood of developing cancer of the head or neck. A study comparing 173 cancer patients and 176 healthy individuals *produced evidence that* marijuana smoking doubled or tripled the risk of these cancers.
> 
> Marijuana abuse also *has the potential* to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that *may* *_accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells_*(non-absolute statement). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana *may* be more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


 
granted, the words in between the non-absolutes are pretty bad, but try and find an article supporting marijuana, one that gives medical evidence, and then find another anti-pot article. I garuntee both will have plenty of backdoor escapes for their evidence gathering.

And what is carinogenic mean in laymen's terms?
=============================================================================

*And enough about the drugs, the main article for debate was my god theory*


----------



## Azathoth (Jan 4, 2007)

> And what is carcinogenic mean in laymen's terms?


  Carcinogens are chemicals or substances which have the potential to cause cancer.  That is why the article uses so many non-absolute words; a carcinogen won't *absolutely* give you cancer, but its presence increases the probability that the consumer will get cancer.  Nicotine is an example of a carcinogenic substance.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Jan 4, 2007)

Drugs and God. Flip side of the same coin. Both weaken the critical faculties of the mind even as they provide the illusion of empowerment. Both are as addictive as Hell. A crutch for intellectual cripples, both should be avoided like the plague.


----------



## Azathoth (Jan 4, 2007)

As for your "god theory" (I like the name of that theory, btw  ... very ambitious) :   

God, according to the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish worldviews, is transcendent. This means that He is set apart from his creation. What you are suggesting is closer to pantheism, the idea that God is creation, or rather, God and His creation are inseparable.

Interestingly enough, however, I think your argument contains some interesting ideas for both theologies. If you are a pantheist, it provides a decent "proof" for a material God (that is, one who is present within Creation but not detectable by scientific inquiry). If you believe in a transcendent God, then your theory shows more "fingerprints" of God (within Christian theology, and I would assume other theologies, there is the idea that God left a "signature" on His work, that through the study of reality we can come to find proofs and understanding of His being.) 

Anyways, I'm not sure the science board is a good place to go into a detailed theological discussion , but if you're interested in hearing more, give me a p.m.


----------



## Azathoth (Jan 4, 2007)

> A crutch for intellectual cripples, both should be avoided like the plague.



Wow, this is the second thread someone has called me an "intellectual cripple" for my religious beliefs.  I'm beginning to think y'all don't like me.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Jan 4, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> Wow, this is the second thread someone has called me an "intellectual cripple" for my religious beliefs. I'm beginning to think y'all don't like me.



Well, religion is like strong liquor, some men a can hold theirs, others can't. Many apologies if I've offended you, but like both religion and narcotics, I've seen the end results of their abuse and deliberate misuse all too frequently. 

Some people are very responsible in their use of recreational drugs and others still yet are the very antithesis of the stereotypical Christian bigot or the Muslim suicide bomber. The trick is moderation. And also personal responsibility. Unfortunately, neither of these concepts frequently enter into the dialogue when discussing these matters.

So, until our species learns to grow up and act in a mature fashion, I'm an advocate of keeping these items locked up and out of reach until such time when they can prove their ability to handle them like an adult. If none of these critiques apply to you Azathoth, please diregard them. They certainly weren't aimed at you. However, know that they _were_ targeted at the Elmer Gantrys and Tony Montanas of the world. And right now there are too many of them out there.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 4, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> My friend describes the exact opposite symptoms listed as short-term effects, but he is only one person, and I've heard of people who are better at doing things when drunk, so, whatever. (I'll ask him next hour and give... correct 'data' on the short-term effects)
> 
> granted, the words in between the non-absolutes are pretty bad, but try and find an article supporting marijuana, one that gives medical evidence, and then find another anti-pot article. I garuntee both will have plenty of backdoor escapes for their evidence gathering.


 
Well, Admiral, part of your question has been answered, as to what carcinogenic means, and also part of why they use so many qualifiers. What it amounts to is the difference between "anecdotal evidence" (dealing with individual accounts or observations) and "systematic scientific evidence", that is, based upon a larger number of test subjects, generally with a control group, and testable for falsifiability. And with anything as variable as human metabolism, there will be exceptions to most of these terms; people who are genetically predisposed toward cancer are at higher risk to develop it from carcinogens than those who are genetically predisposed to resistance to cancer (or caries, diabetes, etc.). Hence it's not an across-the board thing, but based upon statistical information.

Add to that the element of "falsifiability" with any genuine scientific model (that is, it must be left open for the possibility of evidence gathered in the future that is itself testable, repeatable, and verifiable, which would radically challenge, alter, or overthrow the accepted model). With all these factors, it is impossible to say that smoking marijuana will always and inevitably have the effects mentioned, but the statistical likelihood is extremely high.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Jan 5, 2007)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> Well, religion is like strong liquor, some men a can hold theirs, others can't. Many apologies if I've offended you, but like both religion and narcotics, I've seen the end results of their abuse and deliberate misuse all too frequently.
> 
> Some people are very responsible in their use of recreational drugs and others still yet are the very antithesis of the stereotypical Christian bigot or the Muslim suicide bomber. The trick is moderation. And also personal responsibility. Unfortunately, neither of these concepts frequently enter into the dialogue when discussing these matters.
> 
> So, until our species learns to grow up and act in a mature fashion, I'm an advocate of keeping these items locked up and out of reach until such time when they can prove their ability to handle them like an adult. If none of these critiques apply to you Azathoth, please diregard them. They certainly weren't aimed at you. However, know that they _were_ targeted at the Elmer Gantrys and Tony Montanas of the world. And right now there are too many of them out there.


 
I respect your position high;y and believe it about the drugs, however, man, in my own humble and human opinion, will never become true 'adults' we'll only ever be children mentally, you may have more experience and knowledge than a two year old, but our marturity stops there

which is also why a permanent world peace and public unity will never be possible

although a girl in youth council seems to think otherwise, of course she's a chatholic, while I'm (didn't know what the word was, thanks, guys) pantheistic (I like the sound of that ^_^)

I'm a pantheist... love it

so, yeah, we'll always have the crutches of religion and drugs, because of the injury of immaturity, always holding us back from becoming truly unified or knowing as much as we possibly are capable of

so, war and peace, there is only war, my fellow sapiens

guns or butter? sometimes butter is your gun, and the gun is your butter, nothing is ever clear and smooth, or even blurry a rocky, it's always muddy and slurry, you're blind 100% of the time and you don't even know if you've found what you're looking for when you've found it, and never, ever, be 100% sure that it is what it is


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 19, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> Wow, this is the second thread someone has called me an "intellectual cripple" for my religious beliefs. I'm beginning to think y'all don't like me.


 
Aza...the very first thing I learned since entering this (these) forum(s) is the moment you mention anything about "god" the so-called intellectuals hammer you. I guess ethics, morals, virtures, social responsibility tied to these principles are all just mere crutches for the masses.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 19, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> Aza...the very first thing I learned since entering this (these) forum(s) is the moment you mention anything about "god" the so-called intellectuals hammer you. I guess ethics, morals, virtures, social responsibility tied to these principles are all just mere crutches for the masses.


 
*sigh* This is such a tiresome old chestnut... "ethics, morals, virtues, social responsibility", etc., can exist within or without the boundaries of any particular religious or non-religious views. There have been quite a few very good ethical structures built without benefit of some "higher authority" simply on the basis of observable reality, interdependence, and taking consequences of actions into account; crutches they are not, but they are not dependent on the basis to which you (apparently) assign them.


----------



## Spartan27 (Jan 26, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> *sigh* This is such a tiresome old chestnut... "ethics, morals, virtues, social responsibility", etc., can exist within or without the boundaries of any particular religious or non-religious views. *There have been quite a few very good ethical structures built without benefit of some "higher authority" simply on the basis of observable reality, interdependence, and taking consequences of actions into account; crutches they are no*t, but they are not dependent on the basis to which you (apparently) assign them.


 
JD...can you provide some more info on these as to whom and where and at what time in history?..thanks in advance


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 31, 2007)

Spartan: the fact that you've highlighted my post in the fashion you have leads me to fear that we're getting tangled up in words rather than the message the words convey. My point being, of course, that ethics, morals, virtues, and social responsibility are _in no wise dependent_ on "god" or any religion or mystical belief system.

What you ask about sounds more like looking for ethical _movements_ rather than ethical _systems_, and the two are neither mutually exclusive nor synonymous. An ethical _movement_ requires a _group_ of persons, an ethical _system_ may be evolved by a _single individual_ for their own life; and I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that this is something solely relying on any religious background, as there have been nonbelievers throughout history who have evolved quite complex and stable ethical systems without any reference to religion, or taking from various religions different aspects that seemed sensible, but shorn of their religious framework. Essentially, all agnostics, atheists, and/or secularists of any stripe who have an ethical system rather prove my point... and these may be traced back to at least the pre-Socratics such as Leucippus and Democritus, and go through such thinkers as Bertrand Russell in the earlier twentieth century and beyond.

Rather than run down a list of all the different places you can look, I'll give the easiest, the link on Wikipedia for secular ethics. This should enable you to look up various philosophies and philosophers and their ethical systems, not only on Wikipedia but elsewhere, as well as things that are ethical movements founded on rationalism and observation rather than precept or doctrinal authority. If you're genuinely interested in knowing more about them, there's a world of books out there on the subject; this will allow you to begin your own search and find those that look to be the most fruitful in answering your questions.


Secular ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While this does not provide a list of sources for you to look at, it does give you plenty of information with which to initiate a search for them.

I'd also suggest S. T. Joshi's *Atheism: A Reader* for a variety of articles on the subject. And, as I said, Bertrand Russell has some essays on the subject as well.

I am not saying ethics cannot be based in a religion, but I am asserting unequivocally that religion -- _any_ religion -- is not a _requirement_ for creating a valid ethical system, whereas your post (to which I was replying) at least _seemed_ to imply otherwise:



> Aza...the very first thing I learned since entering this (these) forum(s) is the moment you mention anything about "god" the so-called intellectuals hammer you. I guess ethics, morals, virtures, social responsibility tied to these principles are all just mere crutches for the masses.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 31, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> *sigh* This is such a tiresome old chestnut... "ethics, morals, virtues, social responsibility", etc., can exist within or without the boundaries of any particular religious or non-religious views.


Absolutely, but it doesn't justify the phase that seems to be apparent on many message boards at the moment to shoot down all sign of religion as soon as it rears it's head. Thats not virtuous, that's bitterness.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 31, 2007)

Rane Longfox said:


> Absolutely, but it doesn't justify the phase that seems to be apparent on many message boards at the moment to shoot down all sign of religion as soon as it rears it's head. Thats not virtuous, that's bitterness.


 
Rane, there is no intent here to "shoot down all signs of religion", but there is an answer to the assumption that religion is by default the answer, and that anyone who disagrees with the religious view is _ipso facto_ in the wrong. The idea expressed that ethical/moral behavior is somehow inextricable from religion is simply _not true_, nor should it be allowed to stand unchallenged. Vigorous debate requires that all parties express, to the best of their abilities, the positions they hold, and to try to argue them with candor and honesty, as well as with all the facts at their disposal. To do otherwise simply means that there are no challenging viewpoints to be had; which is never good for _any_ discussion, whatever it may be.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 31, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Rane, there is no intent here to "shoot down all signs of religion", but there is an answer to the assumption that religion is by default the answer, and that anyone who disagrees with the religious view is _ipso facto_ in the wrong.


The impression I certainly get is that and assumptions going on are that religion is in the wrong. There's answers, and then there's becoming the beast you're trying to defeat.

I apologise, this board is not as bad as others with this concept, at the moment, but there are glimmerings, certainly...


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 31, 2007)

No, such is not the intent, and I'm sorry if it comes off that way. What I was taking issue with was the sentiment expressed (or seemingly expressed) in the post I responded to, which was couched in deliberately provocative terms not about the differing opinion, but about the people expressing it. The "so-called intellectuals", "just mere crutches for the masses"... those are not neutral terms, or directed against an position held, but derogatory toward the people on the other side of the issue, and the assumption, as I noted, that these things are exclusive property of any religious (or mystical, to be more general about it) movement, when such is not the case. The implication is that people who do not come from such a position are, ipso facto, immoral, unethical, socially irresponsible, lacking in virtues, etc. That is an assumption that deserves to be challenged, as it is patently untrue as well as derogatory.

If you will note, I phrased my response very carefully, tentatively expressing my concern that we were getting wrapped up in terms rather than the message I was trying to get across, and giving information which allow him to pick and choose among the references he wishes to follow up, rather than simply plunking down those that may bolster my position, at the cost of anything which may disagree. I do give a couple of added references that I found very good, challenging pieces on the subject, but I did not restrict it to that, merely adding them as ones I found particularly of interest.

I've no problem with Spartan or anyone else expressing their religious views. I do, however, have a severe problem with the apparent assumption (based upon the tone of such posts) that those who do not share those views are "out to get me" (which is the way the post comes across, I'm afraid). Challenging positions are not met with fact-based argument, but with emotional defensiveness, which turns into attacks on the person, not their argument. It is that tone, and that assumption, which I am addressing; not his religious views, nor his right to express them.


----------



## Rane Longfox (Jan 31, 2007)

Once again, I apologise jd, and thank you for taking the time to reply. I've seen enough of your posts to respect your views, and know you argue them well, and very logically.

What annoys me is posts such as those made by Curt Chiarelli, where he says


> Drugs and God. Flip side of the same coin. Both weaken the critical faculties of the mind even as they provide the illusion of empowerment. Both are as addictive as Hell. A crutch for intellectual cripples, both should be avoided like the plague.


I see faith and religion as something individual to every single person, and no one has the right to make sweeping comments about other people's religions like that. It offends me, and it should offend all of you, because it is undermining free thought, which, as we know, is at the heart of all progress.


----------



## mosaix (Jan 31, 2007)

Rane Longfox said:


> Once again, I apologise jd, and thank you for taking the time to reply. I've seen enough of your posts to respect your views, and know you argue them well, and very logically.
> 
> What annoys me is posts such as those made by Curt Chiarelli, where he says
> 
> I see faith and religion as something individual to every single person, and no one has the right to make sweeping comments about other people's religions like that. It offends me, and it should offend all of you, because it is undermining free thought, which, as we know, is at the heart of all progress.



Can't agree Rane. Free thought _includes_ thinking freely about our own and _other peoples_ faith and religion or lack of it and about the effect of those faiths and religions or lack of them have on society. Freedom of speech is being allowed to express those thoughts publicly.

Curt is entitled to say what he feels about religion just as you, spartan, JD and I are. That you are offended by it is a by-product of free speech, which, as we know etc., etc.

When people express an opinion, more likely than not, someone will be offended. I don't think you should object to that but argue back and celebrate that there is such a place as Chronicles where you can. Most places, as I'm sure you know, disintegrate into insult and abuse. Amazingly enough that doesn't seem to happen here and I think that's a tribute to us all.

Referring to a previous post of yours, yes I do believe that "religion is in the wrong", being an atheist it would be pretty strange if I thought otherwise. But when I reply to a pro-religious post I don't see that as being anti-religious, I'm just putting an alternative view point. Religion gets plenty of opportunities to express itself without any right-of-reply (Church on a Sunday morning for instance), Chronicles isn't one of them. 

But, like I've said on other posts, all friends here.


----------



## Spartan27 (Feb 2, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Spartan: the fact that you've highlighted my post in the fashion you have leads me to fear that we're getting tangled up in words rather than the message the words convey. My point being, of course, that ethics, morals, virtues, and social responsibility are _in no wise dependent_ on "god" or any religion or mystical belief system.
> 
> What you ask about sounds more like looking for ethical _movements_ rather than ethical _systems_, and the two are neither mutually exclusive nor synonymous. An ethical _movement_ requires a _group_ of persons, an ethical _system_ may be evolved by a _single individual_ for their own life; and I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that this is something solely relying on any religious background, as there have been nonbelievers throughout history who have evolved quite complex and stable ethical systems without any reference to religion, or taking from various religions different aspects that seemed sensible, but shorn of their religious framework. Essentially, all agnostics, atheists, and/or secularists of any stripe who have an ethical system rather prove my point... and these may be traced back to at least the pre-Socratics such as Leucippus and Democritus, and go through such thinkers as Bertrand Russell in the earlier twentieth century and beyond.
> 
> ...


 
JD...all I asked was please provide your information, that's all. I simply just quoted your comment in my post, where you said there are examples. And I just would like to see the examples.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 2, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> JD...all I asked was please provide your information, that's all. I simply just quoted your comment in my post, where you said there are examples. And I just would like to see the examples.


 
I've given you places to look for them, and a couple of specific examples that I found very interesting. As I said earlier, this gives you more freedom of choice in following up specific leads that may interest you, rather than just those that I've encountered, or am particularly interested in. Whether you agree with them or not, it's a fascinating field to investigate, and full of challenging ideas (especially as there are a variety of approaches to this, each with their own merits and faults).

As for examples, I did provide examples, from the Greek atomists such as Democritus to the secular humanism which took its rise in the enlightenment, to modern approaches, from ethical atheism to objectivism (a tricky one, that last, as it is often abused, but not without some merit). The problem here being that there are a wealth of choices to look at, and some may interest you while others would not. There is also, as I mentioned above, the fact that ethical systems may be (and often are) formulated by individuals, whereas religious ethicism is usually from an authoritarian, preceptual, or dogmatic approach. So it is much easier to point to movements and sources that have existed over a long period of time, whereas with non-religious ethics there is such a wide spectrum that it is difficult to pick and choose which examples to give; much better to point to places where those interested may find the information for themselves, and generally more helpful for finding answers.


----------



## Spartan27 (Feb 2, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> I've given you places to look for them, and a couple of specific examples that I found very interesting. As I said earlier, this gives you more freedom of choice in following up specific leads that may interest you, rather than just those that I've encountered, or am particularly interested in. Whether you agree with them or not, it's a fascinating field to investigate, and full of challenging ideas (especially as there are a variety of approaches to this, each with their own merits and faults).
> 
> As for examples, I did provide examples, from the Greek atomists such as Democritus to the secular humanism which took its rise in the enlightenment, to modern approaches, from ethical atheism to objectivism (a tricky one, that last, as it is often abused, but not without some merit). The problem here being that there are a wealth of choices to look at, and some may interest you while others would not. There is also, as I mentioned above, the fact that ethical systems may be (and often are) formulated by individuals, whereas religious ethicism is usually from an authoritarian, preceptual, or dogmatic approach. So it is much easier to point to movements and sources that have existed over a long period of time, whereas with non-religious ethics there is such a wide spectrum that it is difficult to pick and choose which examples to give; much better to point to places where those interested may find the information for themselves, and generally more helpful for finding answers.


 
JD...thanks, however what you provide is not addressing my original question to you. What you describe is a quasi-philosophy, and by the way a portion of which is taken directly from the philosophy of democracy (humanitarian view/view portion of the democractic philosophy and not the entire philosophy which then balances other aspects of the view). 

What I was getting at is that there has not been any civilization based on that principle (specific to the secular (sp?) view that you have suggested) and that was my question to provide those civilizations based on those principles.

That's all I was getting at. Don't take this the wrong way, not my intent to stir any pot....


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 2, 2007)

Spartan27 said:


> JD...thanks, however what you provide is not addressing my original question to you. What you describe is a quasi-philosophy, and by the way a portion of which is taken directly from the philosophy of democracy (humanitarian view/view portion of the democractic philosophy and not the entire philosophy which then balances other aspects of the view).
> 
> What I was getting at is that there has not been any civilization based on that principle (specific to the secular (sp?) view that you have suggested) and that was my question to provide those civilizations based on those principles.
> 
> That's all I was getting at. Don't take this the wrong way, not my intent to stir any pot....


 
*Well, the darned thing ate my original response, so let's try this again... *

That clarifies things considerably. I had not got that impression at all from the post that initiated this entire sub-discussion. That post, as you'll recall, simply said the following:



> the very first thing I learned since entering this (these) forum(s) is the moment you mention anything about "god" the so-called intellectuals hammer you. I guess ethics, morals, virtures, social responsibility tied to these principles are all just mere crutches for the masses


 
which seems to imply that ethics, morals, etc., are inextricably linked to a religious system, which they demonstrably are not. It is that to which I took exception -- not that they can be a part of a religious system, but that they can only be a part of such, and without a religious base, they cannot exist. So thank you for the clarification, though I admit I don't see how I could have got what you're saying here from either that or subsequent posts. Perhaps it was intended, but simply not stated clearly. In any case, thank you for clearing that up. And I don't see what you're saying in this post (or the one asking for examples, either) as trying to "stir the pot", merely as asking for clarification on my part, as well as providing some of your own.

Now, as to the assertions you make above:



> What you describe is a quasi-philosophy, and by the way a portion of which is taken directly from the philosophy of democracy (humanitarian view/view portion of the democractic philosophy and not the entire philosophy which then balances other aspects of the view).


 
Yes, it is a philosophy (or part of such); all ethical systems are part of a more general philosophy, religious or otherwise; so I'm not sure what you're addressing there. As for it being "taken directly from the philosophy of democracy..." etc. -- again, I'm unclear about several things here. For one, I'm not at all sure I understand the latter part of the sentence (the part in parentheses); that is, the phrasing is such that I'm unclear on your meaning. Could you explain this a bit, please?

As for it being connected to democracy ... there are several points there I'd like to address. I don't recall making any statements anywhere that indicated whether they were or were not so connected, so I'm again not sure where you're going with that. Also, I'm highly dubious that you could put Democritus and the Greek Atomists (or many of the other pre-Socratics) in with any "democratic" philosophy, as several of them had strong questions about the viablity and/or stability of democracy as a system, anyway.

As to the questions of civilizations built on secular views ... no, that would be highly unlikely at this point, given the relatively recent (in point of the history of civilization itself) development of rationalist, non-supernatural views of reality; nor are we likely to see such for some time. Even a society built on such, let alone an entirely civilization, is going to be a long, slow process.

And my own post, to which you had asked for examples, nowhere made mention of civilizations or societies built upon such, only ethical systems of a secular nature:



> There have been quite a few very good ethical structures built without benefit of some "higher authority" simply on the basis of observable reality, interdependence, and taking consequences of actions into account[...]


 
So when you asked for examples of such, I took you to mean "examples of ethical systems" not societies, and attempted to provide them accordingly. (Let me hasten to add here, I'm not chiding. The more we clarify what each is asking, the more we may understand, and the better discussion this can be. As long as we avoid getting into personalities and debate points of view, I think it proves to be much more interesting and fruitful; so thank you. )

At any rate, perhaps we're each a bit clearer on what the other was aiming at (though I'm the one who's taken up the majority of space in making my points here). If you disagree with my position (that such ethical systems -- not movements, not societies -- have been created, or are viable alternatives to a religiously-based system), then by all means present your case. We may or may not ever reach a point of agreement, but civil discussion of the different points should at least prove enlightening, and give some good food for thought.

Cheers!


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 3, 2007)

Rane Longfox said:


> Once again, I apologise jd, and thank you for taking the time to reply. I've seen enough of your posts to respect your views, and know you argue them well, and very logically.
> 
> What annoys me is posts such as those made by Curt Chiarelli, where he says
> 
> I see faith and religion as something individual to every single person, and no one has the right to make sweeping comments about other people's religions like that. It offends me, and it should offend all of you, because it is undermining free thought, which, as we know, is at the heart of all progress.


 
sorry, but statements such as this only offend if you let them offend.

to put it in my mother's words: Ignore the little brat and he'll get bored and go bother someone else.

well, not exactely what she said, more of my extrapolation of what she said making it sound specific to persons and not vague enough to be applied to some exceptional circumstance as to render the said statement, stupid, so, don't anybody try it, or I eat all your food, beware, lawlz.
=========================================================

Oh, BTW, nothing undermines free thought, for thought, by its very nature, can only be controlled by the one thinking, so, you undermine your own thoughts because someone tells you to.

That, my friends, makes you a dog. Always look a gift-horse in the mouth, there's bound to be Trojans hiding.
=======================================================================================================
=======================================================================================================

So, I've come to new veiws, care to here them? too bad, I'm telling you anyways!!!  ^_^ .,,,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) There is now point in much of anything because the universe will eventually crash upon itself and start all over, erasing any and all aigns of our acomplishments, whether we go extinct or not, into the bruning super-plasma of Planck-length compression of the universe.

2) Mankind deserves to be wiped away upon a pyre of atoms for his uncounted crimes in his quest to dominate everything around him, including his fellows, capitalists must die, so must currency, the governments, the religions, the cultures, and the resulting close-mindedness.

In case you didn't know a tiny troupe of chimps in the rainforest has more genetic diversity than all 6.5+ billion human beings, and you thought racism was bad enough.

6 people in North America (namely inside the contiguous US, probably California itself) control 59% of the world-nation's wealth, and I'm supposed to believe they earned all of it through sweat, toil, and sacrifice, right.

Senators get to vote their own raises without any outside knowledge or influence, granted their increased salaries don't come into effect until next term, but still, they make enough already, and this is our tax money they're tossing around like potatoes in a juggling act.

According to George Orwell in his book '1984' the class system is maintained by: 1) underestimating resource needs and wasting more resources in scrambling to get the rest; and, 2) Spending as much surplus as possible on war-related... things (forgot my words, sorry)

So, I hope the FBI is watching me, because if they aren't, they won't be prepared for rebellion.

And if you think my ideas are drastic, just remember, the colonists rebelled against unjust Britain, we Americans have the right, no, we have the duty and calling and responsibility to rise up and throw away any oppressors of equality and freedom.  And right now, the way things are, economic policy is doing just that, things need to radically change before we can hope for them to get better, rise up, throw off your shackles, the ones we do not see because we are too busy watching the clock, rise up, rise up and fight off the oppressor, big business, big pocketbooks, big houses, waste, unnecessary waste, and unnecessarily large paychecks, that is what we need to fight and kill.

And the people who allow and make room for this system to continue, well, they are traitors to humanity and life as we know it, but they retain their rights to life and comfort, do not kill, bar them from this land, and any like them, exile the traitors, let them live as like, but outside our walls of prosperity, knowledge, understanding, and kinship.

We are Humans, unique among all life-forms of this dusty little rock; we are called to be its protectors, not its destroyers and squanderers.

I call you, America, to help right this world-wide wrong, and possibly bring about the beginnings of peace.

America, I call you to Anarchy.
=======================================================================================================
Mine heart burns as I write this, never have I felt strongly, let alone this strongly, about anything in life.  I see mankind destroying the beaty of life on this birthing ground, abusing the rocky fetus, shall life continue upwards in scale, our birth into the stars as violent and painful as the mother during childbirth, shall we become stillborns, or will our red-rimmed bloodthirsty eyes of green greed spread across the milky way, destroying everything in war, hate, and lust?

I see a future where dystopian decendants have forgotten a now-dead Earth, barren a lifeless with its polluted skies and oceans, a sickly, muddy brown-yellow ball of death and decay.  They have forgotten Earth, and everything in their past, good is a quality of rarity, and one that puts you into an early grave.

Shall we become gold-thirsty savages?  Or will we conquer the wrong here and now?

I ask you America, land of my birth, land of my blood, land of the blood of every nation, will you look up from the gore-strewn ground of which you spend your life wallowing in ignorance and selfishness, will you look up, turn away from all that you know, turn away from your practiced lifestyle, and look towards the light of the Sun, Moon and stars, will their image spur you on to reach at them once again, this time of a desire to expand, make room, explore, discover, touch new planes, and perserve the memories of the Earth as it is now for future generations to come?  Will your minds stay locked on lofty goals, knowing that your eyes will not see them, but that you keep toiling towards the tranquil stars for your lineage's sake?  Will you strive for the good of others, forsaking yourself, with the knowledge that if you do, and so do others, that your needs will be met by the community, because they care for you, and you care for them, we all take care of each other, so that we do not have to struggle for ourselves?

The Ages of competition and survival have passed, we are at a new level of evolution, the evolution of the mind, your genes do not matter so much anymore, as long as the mind endures, the genes are secondary, as long as the minds unite in evolution, genes become secondary.

I call, first the people of the American Territories, and second the people of the human race of Earth.

I call you.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 5, 2007)

Rebellion Update~

Well, I just got a jolt... or... something.  Turns out I'm about to rebel for the wrong reason.

Alright, so I'm still going to overthrow america... or something along those lines, but not for the purpose of overthrowing america, instead it's to form the last.. or second-to-last/last of two bastions against Mohammedian Islamists.

3...2...1... okay, now that I have about.... Islam after my infidelic head, it's time to explain my veiw.... great, I never do well under pressure.

Alright, so, I'm obviously an infedel... infidel? (spl???)

Now, why am I an... an Islamic heretic, perhaps a demon, or maybe even the second Great Satan.

Just Remember, I'm against Mohammedian Islamists, not Muslims, not Islamists, just those who follow the religious twistings of the demon Mohammed.

...Aaaaaand now all of the Arabic-ish world wants to kill me, perhaps a few of them see my point, but they also the the raging hordes of fanatics looking for me and are keeping quiet, right, as if I were to be so popular, I wish, this isn't even posted yet and I'm letting my head get bigger, POP.

Why is 'The Great Prophet' Mohammed a demon, you ask?

Simple, he twisted the Islamic to his own ends, much like the politicians of today, saying they work for the good of the people while they stuff their Swiss bank accounts with countless currency from the tax haul.

My proof or point of judgement, one instance, and I need only one because of its severity, in fact, it defies one of the basic principles of Islam.

Mohammed told a man, whose wife he lusted after, that Allah/God had told him in a vision that the man was to divorce his wife so that Mohammed could marry her, why, because it was God's/Allah's will that the man break the divine law, because God told him it was okay this time.

Now why is that bad, well, first off, Islam says: No Divorce, EVER!!!

Second, and I'm not positive about this one: Does not Islam veiw sex/intercourse as a means of procreation only?

So, by twisting God's law, and falsifying God's judgement, to break a divine law handed down by God himself, does Mohammed not become an infidel?

A heathen, a traitor to his religion, or are Muslim men simply allowed to be exempt from propper, just, and just plain common sensical behavior.
=========================================================

In closing, Mohammed is, as some say, the Anti-Christ, cause, if you think about it, he set 9/11 into motion, he set up a religion which would lead to that, I sort of feel sorry for the poor idiots who get brainwashed, passively or actively, to blow their young bodies up in the name of Allah, because the immam says it is god's will that they bring jihad/holy war upon all that do not beleive.

Actually, screw the closing.

Why doesn't the immam himself join in the jubilant festivities of the jihad?

Because he's old?

Because he's the immam and must lead others?

Why not?  It's God's will, isn't it?

Or is it the cowardly leaders, not just Muslims leaders, are too, in their minds and thusly in their subjects, that the leaders are soooooo much more valuable than the brave souls that do the deed.

It's really the converse, because without all the young and impressionable minds, there would be no jihad.

The cowardly geniuses will always lead the brave morons into battle from the high horse.

And the leaders of fanatics are often less courageous than those who lead concrete minds that are not easily turned to barbarism in battle or victory.

It's also easier to lead fanatics, as long as you point them towards what they hate, or make them think they hate it, and say "GO, there is your glory and salvation, fight for it, die for it, kill as many as you can" and then you sit back and watch the resulting explosions.  All-in-all, it seems to be a very cushy ledership duty, whip them into a frenzy when you need it, or give some smart-sounding speach to appease their inflated egos, as long as their ego isn't diminished in any way, you remain in full control of them.

So, now I've not only totally insult their religion and way of life, though I don't really respect those who use their power to hold death over people to get what you want, and I've made a stab at popping those big fat hot-air ballons of heads they have, things don't look well for me if this circulates around the Islamic nets.

Actually, go ahead and circulate them, I don't care, for one, I live in america, second, I don't fear death, I mean, it's not a good thing, but it's going to come to me one way or the other, not that I'm ready to die, I'm not going into my grave quietly, but I'm not going into it begging and pleading with the reaper.

It's the stupid people who think that when they cower and grovel to the fanatics that they will stop their brand of fighting, ala terrorism.

If any politicians come acrost this, I hope it leaves an impression upon your tiny spark of a self-serving mind, you can't negotiate with these people, not the crazy ones at least, and only slightly more-so with the regular non-crazy non-fanatic semi-intelligent Islamists.  So stop trying to pull out of Iraq, we haven't even begun to rack up deaths yet, we can't have another Vietnam.

Not that any politician will ever listen to some stoopid seventeen-year old punk with an attitude problem, right?
=========================================================
=========================================================

Now, I had a thought last night before going to sleep, another one of my feverish pacings around the single floor apartment I live in, pacing doeswonders for thinking.  n3weiz, I though: Why not fight fire with fire.

Low-grade visual-effect wide-range terror bombings of Islamic states, the rouge ones.  Drop High Altitude Bomblet Cluster Packages, like a big box of light bulbs, no major damage, just to scare the **** of them, over and over and over, definately with a few actual explosion put in for good effect, along with some actual blanket-runs with eplosive bomblets only, the: you-never-know-when scare factor, put them on the edge and keep them there.

And how do we pick our targets?  Well, just take the intell you have on where insurgents and radical groups are hiding and terror-bomb those places, droping little leaflets afterwards telling the populace that as long as they harbor radiacals and insurgents, things like this will continue to happen.

Is it ethical? Probably not.  Is it more effective and perserving of life than sending in troops? Most likely yes for both sides, the civilians and soldiers I mean, the radicals still get pulped, but, this it's not just by the soldiers.

See, if you have some geurilla force who has, so far, harried the flanks of the occupying force and kept them confused and bleeding from many small wounds and sometimes big ones, you're bound to support them for fighting against the invaders.  Now if the result of these tactics brings the invaders to lash back with low-devastation attacks but they happen everywhere and constantly, delivered from a place the geurillas can't strike at, you're bound to chase them out, capture/kill them yourself, and also cooperate with this high-tech geurilla force that has clearly beaten the home-land geurillas at their own game.
=========================================================
=========================================================


----------



## Urien (Feb 5, 2007)

That one light of reason should glimmer sadly in the darkness.

Alas I see no light; only the young and gullable harking to the siren call from and to the limitless void.


----------



## jackokent (Feb 5, 2007)

Well I guess we've all be advocating free speach.  It doesn't get much freer


----------



## mosaix (Feb 6, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> Rebellion Update~
> 
> Now, I had a thought last night before going to sleep, another one of my feverish pacings around the single floor apartment I live in, pacing doeswonders for thinking.  n3weiz, I though: Why not fight fire with fire.
> 
> ...



Alternatively we could just try leaving them alone, not invading them for their natural resources, not installing puppet governments in their countries and not torturing them or imprisoning them without trial. 

And you know what? It's cheaper that way.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 7, 2007)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> That one light of reason should glimmer sadly in the darkness.
> 
> Alas I see no light; only the young and gullable harking to the siren call from and to the limitless void.


 
damn, that was deep... well good, dep, IDK, but good noetheless


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 7, 2007)

mosaix said:


> Alternatively we could just try leaving them alone, not invading them for their natural resources, not installing puppet governments in their countries and not torturing them or imprisoning them without trial.
> 
> And you know what? It's cheaper that way.


 
of course, the problem with the isolationist logic you display is that they're gonna do it to us.

now, I'm saying that if they are gonna do it to us, then we should do it to them.

And I've definately scratched the above stated plan off my list of anti-terror tactics, now there are none, lol

and when you say cheaper, do you mean in lives or dollars?
jus thought I hit you with that one.
=========================================================

Alright, I've come to the conclusion that there is no EFFECTIVE anti-terror tactic that does not qualify for the terror category itself.

Read Mark Steyn's: America Alone

I'm halfway through and it's pretty good, I want to say entertaining, but that's just my malfunctioning vocabulary memory cache acting up again.

So, how do we beat the terrorists.

You can't.

Unless... you kill all the imams and leaders and whatnot, but that's bound to have some PR problems with american followers of the faith.

I don't know, now that I've vented all this, I don't feel much like leading the infidels against this threat as I did when my brain was all crowed with thoughts of beatinf terrorists and uniting the world under a banner of semi-peace, or enlightenment or whathaveyou, and on the other half, about video games and my future in the field.

Now, it's all bleak and dusty, filled with lust and longing for knowledge of my purpose on this knowledge barren mud-ball of a planet.

I hate to think that mankind will never reach out into the ether because we can't even be coherent in the one nation that has the (near-)immediate possibility of setting up a inter-solar transport system, to mine the belt, jupiter, and colonise the moon and mars to make room for the savage catfight that's being riled up at the moment.

We need to expand,...


NEW IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only way humanity will be at peace is if we focus our aggressive nature outwards at the stars instead of inwards at ourselves.

First Phase: Orbit and the Moon, there's tons of room in the earth-moon bubble for the worlds expanding population, we can move farms up there, and labs, and corporations.  Leaving room on Earth to harvest its potential energy sources from the sun, wind, water, and magma.

The world will turn into a gigantic green energy Farm, its orbital space will house a vast hydroponic cluster.

the earth will go green, blue, and white again with the elimination of human polutions into its atmosphere.

Rockets will eliminate their interface with earth to absolute minimums because of the equatorial space elevators and hydro-fueled earth-bound vehicles.
=========================================================

It's quite a beutiful utopia, but it'll never happen because no one today can look past their individual present-time, and because as a group we look to the past, the minor few of us who are capable of actually theorising paths of action to get to the science fiction of the future are horrified and disgusted by the selfish clock-obsesing primatives we share this decaying biosphere with.

Though, admitedly, I'm not worried we're going to kill earth before we induce cultural suicide and the Islamsist Radicals take over.

Ladies and germs, I'm seeing the possible brightness of the future of you all get you act together and stop thinking about yourself so much and make some sacrifises for the good of mankind.

But, I'm also seeing, so much more clearly, the Islam world of the future where the creativity to get ot the future is stifled by their ungainly rhetoric.
=========================================================

Islam isn't the problem, people, mostly politicians, who don't give damn about anyone else and only care about getting what they think is high class ****.  Like multiple extravagent houses and lots of cars they won't ever use, and most especially, lots and lots and lots of money, moneymoneymoney, living in a rich man's greed.

I'd like to kill a bunch to make an example, but that would only label me a nutcase and push me into prison or the nut house, to be ignored for the rest of my life.

I can only hope that abstract intelligence, combined with optimism and a sense of the future, as well as common sense and correct use of knowledge, along with some chivalric values and morals will make a comeback in humanity, otherwise, we're lost in the tides of lowbrow greed.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 7, 2007)

mosaix said:


> Alternatively we could just try leaving them alone, not invading them for their natural resources, not installing puppet governments in their countries and not torturing them or imprisoning them without trial.
> 
> And you know what? It's cheaper that way.


 
oh, btw, dude, you're both a liberal tool, and a pathetic puppet who can't see his strings


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 7, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> oh, btw, dude, you're both a liberal tool, and a pathetic puppet who can't see his strings


 
Admiral, while we encourage debate here on topics, flinging personal insults is not okay. Please refrain from them in the future.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Feb 7, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> a pathetic puppet who can't see his strings


 
I'm not a puppet, I'm a real boy!
The Blue Fairy said so along with this singing, talking cricket wearing clothes


----------



## Nesacat (Feb 7, 2007)

Bless your heart Winter's Sorrow ... and yes it is true too ... he's a real boy. The Cat saw it all happen.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 7, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Admiral, while we encourage debate here on topics, flinging personal insults is not okay. Please refrain from them in the future.


 
who said I was flinging insults, first off, if that was an insult, it was carefully guided and not FLUNG.

and I didn't see it as an insult, I saw it as making him/her aware of his disability so he/she can conquer it.

Or am I too blunt, and I should be more sensitive, because it's the NICE THING TO DO.

THAT was an insult, sir, FLUNG at you.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Feb 7, 2007)

Why is it the loudest shouters have the thinnest skins?


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 7, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> who said I was flinging insults, first off, if that was an insult, it was carefully guided and not FLUNG.
> 
> and I didn't see it as an insult, I saw it as making him/her aware of his disability so he/she can conquer it.
> 
> ...


 
Admiral... personal attacks are not permitted on the forum. Check your forum rules on that. I strongly advise you to curb this sort of behavior, as it can result in being removed from the forum if it continues. If, on the other hand, you choose to debate in a civilized fashion, that's quite another thing.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 7, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> oh, btw, dude, you're both a liberal tool, and a pathetic puppet who can't see his strings


 
That's a personal attack - and that's a moderator who pointed it out to you - so put a stop to the attitude if you'd like to continue using the site, thanks.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 8, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> who said I was flinging insults, first off, if that was an insult, it was carefully guided and not FLUNG.
> 
> and I didn't see it as an insult, I saw it as making him/her aware of his disability so he/she can conquer it.
> 
> ...



AR thanks for for your interest in my disability. 

A couple of points.

I don't see refraining from invasion, torture and unjust imprisonment as isolationism. Hundreds of countries get along with each other every day without going to war or stiring up strife. Some, however (and this includes mine) don't seem capable of it. History teaches us that we reap what we sow.

Secondly you ask how to defeat terrorism. For twenty five years in the UK the IRA carried out a series of sustained terrorist attacks in both Northern Ireland and the British mainland. The British Goverment tried everything it knew: imprisonment without trial, torture, force of arms and shooting innocent people dead at political rallies. In turn the IRA shot soldiers, blew up army bases and civilans (including babes in prams), attempted to destroy the infrastructure of Northern Ireland and disrupt everyday life on the mainland.

After twenty five of this it came to nothing. Nothing changed and the two sides fought each other just as ferociously as they ever had. Over 3,000 people died many of whom had no connection to the 'troubles' at all - including, I seem to remember, some American tourists. 

I'm not going to comment on the right or wrong of each side's argument or the fact that Noraid paid for some of the explosives and weapons that the IRA used to kill British, Irish and American civilians. What I am going to comment on is the _solution_.

In the end our Government sat down and talked with the terrorists and asked "What do you want, what is the matter, why are you trying to kill us?"

A dialogue was started that resulted in the terrorists becoming part of _the political process. _The IRA didn't get everthing they wanted but neither did the British Government, but that's the nature of democracy. 

The tradgedy is that some forward looking British politicians started a political dialogue with the IRA in the early 1980's and were pilloried for doing so. Because they weren't listened to many more people died.

You can't defeat the terrorist any more than he can defeat you but you can stop the _terrorism_. Here's how to do - find Osama Bin Laden sit down with him, discuss the problem and come to a political solution.

Unpalatable? Well imagine how I feel that in the last Northern Ireland Assembly and ex IRA terrorist, who the intelligence service say has murdered Bristish solidiers, was the Minister For Education. Of course it's unpalatable but it is preferable to what was happening before.

The strange thing is that all this was done by the current British Government - they know the solution - they just haven't got the guts to do it again until enough people have been killed by Osama Bin Laden and his ilk that the British public are so sick of it that they want a solution at any cost.

The American Government know this also. In Vietnam they sat down with the Viet Cong, in Paris, and said "OK how do we get ourselves out of this." But before they did that thousands of American and Vietnamese lives were lost, to avoid loss of face.

The solution to the current terrorist threat will be _a political one *not* a military one,_ the question is how soon will the dialogue start and how many people will die before it does.

What we need now are leaders with vision - a quality that is decidely lacking on both sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## iansales (Feb 8, 2007)

As Canadian comedian Phil Nichol, winner of the 2006 if.comeddie Award, put it: "Wars are good. Wars teach America where other countries are."


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 8, 2007)

iansales said:


> As Canadian comedian Phil Nichol, winner of the 2006 if.comeddie Award, put it: "Wars are good. Wars teach America where other countries are."



Yes, true, but cracking open a geography book is a much cheaper and dignified option.


----------



## Allegra (Feb 8, 2007)

The problem is George often forgets where he stacked his geography text book.


----------



## iansales (Feb 8, 2007)

But the world map in US geography books shows only a huge continent (USA), a tiny continent (Europe), and half a dozen other countries (Axis of Evil)


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 8, 2007)

mosaix said:


> AR thanks for for your interest in my disability.
> 
> A couple of points.
> 
> ...



This is another well-reasoned and excellent post Mosaix. 

To cut to the heart of the matter, the whole underlying reason for politically motivated terrorism is for small nations and movements to acquire recognition and gain enough leverage to govern their own destinies - in essense, for their concerns to be taken seriously by more powerful nations that have bullied and exploited them in the past. 

Now, whether or not the prerogitives of these individuals are worthy of their goal is one matter; that the means employed toward achieving it are repugnant should be unquestioned. But as a practicable solution I think Mosaix's comments should be given very serious thought.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 8, 2007)

Allegra said:


> The problem is George often forgets where he stacked his geography text book.



Allegra, you've brightened my day once again! To contemplate that he _ever owned a book_ _or can even read_ fills me such high hopes!


----------



## Dave (Feb 8, 2007)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> To contemplate that he _ever owned a book_ _or can even read_ fills me such high hopes!


He is quoted as saying that his favourite book was 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar'. That is a book that was first published while he was at College.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 8, 2007)

Dave said:


> He is quoted as saying that his favourite book was 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar'. That is a book that was first published while he was at College.



Ah, the boy_ is_ making some serious progress!


----------



## Allegra (Feb 8, 2007)

Dave said:


> He is quoted as saying that his favourite book was 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar'. That is a book that was first published while he was at College.


 
Out of curiosity, had a look on wiki about the book, it's about the right type - _'It... has been praised for its use of easy-to-read words' 'The book contains 225 words', 'It follows a __caterpillar__ as it munches its way through a variety of edibles such as __ice cream__, __salami__, __watermelon__ and a __lollipop__ before it finally __pupates__ and emerges as a __butterfly__', 'The story teaches the life cycle of a butterfly, counting to 5, the names of the days of the week, and about food.'_  Evidently it helped developing personalities and intelligence.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 8, 2007)

mosaix said:


> In the end our Government sat down and talked with the terrorists and asked "What do you want, what is the matter, why are you trying to kill us?"
> 
> You can't defeat the terrorist any more than he can defeat you but you can stop the _terrorism_. Here's how to do - find Osama Bin Laden sit down with him, discuss the problem and come to a political solution.
> 
> ...


 
Dude, I forgot that one, it was one of my most promising ideas, but I eschewed it in favor of counter-terrorism, dam, I'm just like the rest of them, only slightly less so.

Yeah, so even though I tossed out two flippant insults, it got more progessive ideas out there, not that I was aiming for it, I blame my arrogant egotism.

And paranoia, they three are party to my internal confusion and debate.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 8, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> Dude, I forgot that one, it was one of my most promising ideas, but I eschewed it in favor of counter-terrorism, dam, I'm just like the rest of them, only slightly less so.
> 
> Yeah, so even though I tossed out two flippant insults, it got more progessive ideas out there, not that I was aiming for it, I blame my arrogant egotism.
> 
> And paranoia, they three are party to my internal confusion and debate.




AR no offense taken. All friends here.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 8, 2007)

Allegra said:


> Out of curiosity, had a look on wiki about the book, it's about the right type - _'It... has been praised for its use of easy-to-read words' 'The book contains 225 words', 'It follows a __caterpillar__ as it munches its way through a variety of edibles such as __ice cream__, __salami__, __watermelon__ and a __lollipop__ before it finally __pupates__ and emerges as a __butterfly__', 'The story teaches the life cycle of a butterfly, counting to 5, the names of the days of the week, and about food.'_  Evidently it helped developing personalities and intelligence.



So, after consuming all our Civil Rights, chewing gaping holes through our national budget and gobbling up the future of our youngsters, George will emerge from his grubby little coccoon of bigotry, ignorance, ineptitude and malice a champion of Truth, Justice, Scientific Rationalism and the American Way of Life? Uh huh!


----------



## Urien (Feb 8, 2007)

I don't know, but I'm thinking that maybe you and the Prez are no longer friends.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 8, 2007)

andrew.v.spencer said:


> I don't know, but I'm thinking that maybe you and the Prez are no longer friends.



A very astute summation . . . . even if there was the remotest possiblity of a friendship, even under the best of circumstances! You see, I have this hang-up: I detest bullies, religious fanatics, ideological demogogues, sociopaths and overpaid bunglers.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 8, 2007)

dude, the social programs are destroying us, not the military ones

people by nature are selfish and aggressive when they don't have what they want.

social programs, admitedly aimed at making society better, are in fact removing responsibility from the populace, turning the nation into a bunch of children with no aims at furthering the future of their people, instead they seek to take care of what they want and don't give a dam about anyone else

social programs need to go, return responsibility to the people
==============================================================================

I also detest those you list, in addition: lazy-4sses, free-loaders, communists, and socialists


----------



## mosaix (Feb 8, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> I also detest those you list, in addition: lazy-4sses, free-loaders, communists, and *socialists*




Still friends AR!


----------



## Urien (Feb 8, 2007)

Endangered species are socialists. World wildlife fund has just listed them.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 9, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> dude, the social programs are destroying us, not the military ones
> 
> people by nature are selfish and aggressive when they don't have what they want.
> 
> ...



I see. While we're on the subject of welfare queens and economic parasites, the fattest ones in the world aren't poor inner city minorities . . . . they're a different breed of minority, one of which our society emulates and showers with plaudits even as they make our lives untenable: wealthy white elites who constitute approximately less than 2% of America's population, yet control most of the world's wealth. The despicable hand-outs that they and their inefficient, bloated, top-heavy corporations receive courtesy of our government far outstrip the pathetic services the poor receive by a long stretch. And you're an advocate of cutting back on funding for social programs?

Meritocracy? Try _mediocracy_. Free market? America's economy has _never _operated as such_ - it's always been manipulated by the government for the express and exclusive benefit of business.

_No, I believe that the initial stage of the solution is to be found in dismantling the corporations by revoking their state charters and pumping large amounts of funding into education while eliminating obsolete government agencies.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 9, 2007)

My problem with the social programs is not the giving of money, but of not also using them to help people better their situation, improve their education, their quality of life, their level of culture, and therefore their ability to both get more out of and put more into life. Help the needy to get on their feet, help them to learn to problem-solve and how to deal with those nastinesses life can throw at anyone at times. In the end, this is likely to be a much less expensive way of doing things, though the initial cost is higher. The better our people are trained to cope with contingencies, the more they are taught critical thinking rather than emotional knee-jerk reactionism, the more likely they (and their offspring) won't need as much public assistance -- and they will also live much more full and fruitful lives, and be much more likely to burgeon and be ornaments to their society.

And... exactly what world do I live in?....


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 9, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> My problem with the social programs is not the giving of money, but of not also using them to help people better their situation, improve their education, their quality of life, their level of culture, and therefore their ability to both get more out of and put more into life. Help the needy to get on their feet, help them to learn to problem-solve and how to deal with those nastinesses life can throw at anyone at times. In the end, this is likely to be a much less expensive way of doing things, though the initial cost is higher. The better our people are trained to cope with contingencies, the more they are taught critical thinking rather than emotional knee-jerk reactionism, the more likely they (and their offspring) won't need as much public assistance -- and they will also live much more full and fruitful lives, and be much more likely to burgeon and be ornaments to their society.
> 
> And... exactly what world do I live in?....



Agreed. When someone decends to that level of desperate poverty, the view from the bottom looks awfully deterministic and grandiose chatter about exercsing free will is little more than a hollow joke at their expense. The poor, keenly aware of how narrow their options are and just how much the deck is stacked against them by life and their society, give into despair. It quickly devolves into a self-perpetuating cycle of negativity of which few can overcome and rise above their circumstances.


----------



## mosaix (Feb 9, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> My problem with the social programs is not the giving of money, but of not also using them to help people better their situation, improve their education, their quality of life, their level of culture, and therefore their ability to both get more out of and put more into life. Help the needy to get on their feet, help them to learn to problem-solve and how to deal with those nastinesses life can throw at anyone at times. In the end, this is likely to be a much less expensive way of doing things, though the initial cost is higher. The better our people are trained to cope with contingencies, the more they are taught critical thinking rather than emotional knee-jerk reactionism, the more likely they (and their offspring) won't need as much public assistance -- and they will also live much more full and fruitful lives, and be much more likely to burgeon and be ornaments to their society.
> 
> And... exactly what world do I live in?....



In the UK it used to be the case (it may still be) that you could't receive any form of education whilst on unemployment benefit. The idea was to prevent students from claiming benefits, but it also prevented people who had been made redundant from retraining - so they just sat at home and found it increasingly difficult to get work as the world moved on around them.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Feb 9, 2007)

Also, the much maligned and now defunct "Youth Training Scheme" was scrapped so there were much more limited apprenticeships or vocational training opportunities for the "forgotten" unemployed.

I think whenever you have a scheme which is restricted by age, gender, colour you start breeding resentment in those excluded. I'm not a huge fan of "positive discrimination" either. I see the benefit in promoting & publicising the scheme to minorities but not in creating their own seperate scheme - that just encourages the alienation even further, rather than intergrating them into the general populace


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 9, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> My problem with the social programs is not the giving of money, but of not also using them to help people better their situation, improve their education, their quality of life, their level of culture, and therefore their ability to both get more out of and put more into life. Help the needy to get on their feet, help them to learn to problem-solve and how to deal with those nastinesses life can throw at anyone at times. In the end, this is likely to be a much less expensive way of doing things, though the initial cost is higher. The better our people are trained to cope with contingencies, the more they are taught critical thinking rather than emotional knee-jerk reactionism, the more likely they (and their offspring) won't need as much public assistance -- and they will also live much more full and fruitful lives, and be much more likely to burgeon and be ornaments to their society.
> 
> And... exactly what world do I live in?....


 
yesyesyes, we need the solution that's going to work, it'll cost more in the short run, but it's not going to leech at the budgets like the patch-jobs they're using now.

don't cure the symptoms, cure the problem, the disease, then the symptoms will go away permanently.

I'm not enlightened enough about scio-political stuff that I know absolutely what the problem is, but social programs are a problem, but so are fat-cat millionares and big business corporations.

it's becoming a monopolistc economy again with all these mergers and companies swallowing up other companies.

look at AT&T, they gulped down SBC and Verizon.

So, in my view, however uninformed it may be, excessive social aid programs that shell out money to people instea of getting them reintegrated with the system, big business, virtual/real monopolies on economic 'big ones', and the class system, however invisible it is nowadays, need to disappear.

I'm all for if you work your ass off and get a nice job and lots of money, but if you waste it on frivolity and don't save up for rainy days or use your extreme amounts of excess capital to help your fellow man, then you don't deserve all that money.

Likewise, people with lots of cash shouldn't spoil their children, the whole 'born a silver spoon in their mouth' deal.

Perhaps we should place everyone into poverty after they finish their education, which should be completely equal.
=========================================================
The electronic age we're in today allows a liquid economy, the ability to transfer purchasing capital across the nation to where it's needed imediately.

So, all schools should have equal funding, that's a form of communism that should be incorporated into this failing republic.  Give all educational facilities equal funding to provide a progressive educational environment for the participants.

Further, Big Brother should monitor the use of this equal capital, awarding teachers that actually do their jobs and don't just hand out worksheets.

It's not 'No Child Left Behind'

It's 'No Lazy Teachers Leaving Children Behind'

A kid isn't left behind when they refuse to integrate, they're seperating themselves from the system, but you don't ever give up on them, and you TEACH them, not give them fill-in-the-blanks bullcrap.

The grade is a representation of the child's will to LEARN, not perform.

My mother is a sixth grade teacher.  She TEACHES her kids, pretty much all they do are big projects, they have enough time to do said projects with their class time, they have a demanding work-load, but one that can be done by children their age and level of knowledge.  Parents want their kids in her class when get to sixth grade.  Of course some parents want her to give a bunch of worksheets and extra credit opourtunites so thei kids can get an easy A and get the stupid trophy at the end of the year.

School isn't about being the best of the class, not till ninth grade at least, it's about gaining as much knowledge about the world around you, how it operates, and the learning the skills necessary to survive in that world, and to be progressive in that interaction, not self-serving.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 9, 2007)

Personally, I've always been an advocate of a Works Progress Administration similar to the one instituted under Roosevelt during the Great Depression. You know, a worker's program where the unemployed can _earn_ a living instead of pumping out babies to collect a welfare cheque and then go spend it on crack. This seems to be an honourable means of helping honest folk through difficult times - not a lifestyle choice. 

And the idea of dismantling unecessary government agencies would free up enough funds for another pet project: raising the income level and benefits of teachers. If I had my druthers, the minimum per annum wage for a grade school teacher would be $52,000 USD. In this way we'd be able to attract a higher calibre of individual instead of the dregs of the barrels who only enter teaching because they weren't good enough to enter more lucrative fields. (And here I mean no offense to the small minority of dedicated teachers who face overwhelming odds in the course of doing their jobs well.) Needless to mention, they would have to obtain top grades and pass a battery of examinations to become certified as a teacher. 

Of course, there would be those naysayers who'd howl, claiming that the whole thing would be impractical, but I believe that if our society places a high enough priority on the matter there's no limit to what we can accomplish. Nothing is foolproof and it's certainly not a solution, but I think this would be a good start in the right direction.


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 9, 2007)

In Geneva the salary of a teacher is in the top third of the population, and that of a university professor in the top ten percent, with lawyers and business executives. I can't see that it's damaged society any; but I can't see that it's given that high a standard of education, either.
Those competitive souls who are drawn to teaching as a source of income don't seem to do that much better than those who see it as a last resort.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Feb 9, 2007)

chrispenycate said:


> In Geneva the salary of a teacher is in the top third of the population, and that of a university professor in the top ten percent, with lawyers and business executives. I can't see that it's damaged society any; but I can't see that it's given that high a standard of education, either.
> Those competitive souls who are drawn to teaching as a source of income don't seem to do that much better than those who see it as a last resort.



Thanks for posting this information Chris. Again another interesting perspective from you. Well - in theory at least - it would appear that a higher salary base would attract a better quality of teacher and, therefore, place our society in a position to reap the benefits. 

Of course, what undermines the whole works is something as intangble and uncontrolable as a society's values (or lack thereof). Not to mention its media which disseminates those values . . . . What a chimera! And the Swiss do seem to have some admirable priorities (with the noted exception of laundering artworks looted by the Nazis)!


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 10, 2007)

Don't get me wrong; I think it's an excellent idea that teachers receive saleries concordant wit the importance of their job to society (mind you, I feel the same way about lawyers and sports celebrities) - most of my family is pedagogically inclined (not me, evidently)
But Geneva's a special case, even compared with the rest of Switzerland.

And the border between Geneva and the neigbouring bit of France is totally imaginary, so when we do "comedies musicales" for schools, it's quite possible to work with schools on both sides of the frontier.

The teachers from one side of the line are earning slightly less than garbage collectors, as is the European norm, while the other side they make twice as much (and spend a fair amount the first side)
There are a certain number of dedicated teachers each side, and a certain number of place holders; in fact the percentages seem about the same. The rich place holders are determinedly trying to maintain their privileges, while the other side they're grumbling more, but otherwise?
Similarly with the behaviour and educational results of the pupils.
I'm not quite sure what this goes to prove.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 10, 2007)

that no matter how well paid, the teachers come from the same lots

perhaps grade-based selection of teachers is in order?

I'd have no problem with it cause me mum was top of the class, she's going for her Masters to actually afford a little bit of luxury in our life.  but she does good work, but she still has to deal with stupid parents living through their kids, sadly


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 10, 2007)

BTW, since this IS my thread, I'll add a tiny little side note.

Finally got my story up in the critiques section, read it please, thanks


----------



## Azathoth (Feb 13, 2007)

> perhaps grade-based selection of teachers is in order?



[FONT=&quot]There are a number of problems with that idea.  

1) There aren't enough teachers in the country to be that picky.  I know, for example, that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Arizona[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is absolutely desperate for teachers; if you have over twenty hours or so in a subject area, you are eligible for a teaching license (whereas states which have more teachers and better funding have higher standards).  If teachers were required to maintain a 3.5 average or higher (as opposed to the standard 2.5), we'd have even greater shortages of teachers.

2)  College grades aren't reflective of actual job performance.  There are some people in my teaching program who aren't the brightest in a college classroom, but will undoubtedly be excellent teachers.  And there are people who excel in a classroom, but have such nasty tempers (or other personality disfigurements) that they will be awful teachers.

3)  People change.  A teacher who might have been enthusiastic in college might become an utter sleaze ball when he/she secures a job.  A person who was unenthusiastic in college might have a change of heart when he/she secures a job, and become the greatest teacher ever.


The only way to increase the quality of our education system is to pay teachers more.  If you want monkeys, pay in bananas.  If you want professionals, you need to pay them a competitive salary.  More people would go into the profession, and then schools could pick the cream-of-the-crop.

[rant]Also, I tend to think that the quality of education in our country would go up if people would STOP SUING THE DAMN SCHOOL SYSTEM!  I'm taking a spec. ed. class right now that's really about the legal issues of teaching, and I swear, the court system is really out to destroy the American school.   For example, a court ruling from the 90's - which has only recently been overturned - stated that *teachers* carried the burden of proof when parents accused them of not teaching their child.   I mean, the last time I checked, the *accuser* carries the burden of proof, not the *accused*. [/rant]  
[/FONT]


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 14, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> [FONT=&quot]There are a number of problems with that idea. [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=&quot]1) There aren't enough teachers in the country to be that picky. I know, for example, that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Arizona[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is absolutely desperate for teachers; if you have over twenty hours or so in a subject area, you are eligible for a teaching license (whereas states which have more teachers and better funding have higher standards). If teachers were required to maintain a 3.5 average or higher (as opposed to the standard 2.5), we'd have even greater shortages of teachers.[/FONT]
> 
> ...


 
Azathoth -- these are very good points indeed! Yes, we need a better system for picking teachers, but we also need to make it a field that's valued enough to get more good people in there in the first place!

And as for the legal system comments... No humor in this question, I'm afraid... About it having to be the accuser who carries the burden of proof... Just what country are you from, again?.... Sorry, but I've been through the court system, and sitting and watching it as well... if it was ever that way, it hasn't been for at least a good 20-30 years now. Ostensibly, it still is, but I'm very much afraid that's only lip service; _especially_ when it comes to issues surrounding children. While I agree that we need to protect the children from harm, and try to do our best to make their world a better place... when it comes to getting into court, people should not be prejudged until the burden of proof says they're guilty.... relieve them of a position? Probably a good safety measure, while investigating (after all, we do that with police officers accused of undue force -- at least at times -- don't we? even if they turn out to be innocent). But our entire system seems to be veering into the "not proven" idea of a verdict, rather than "not guilty". And that's a very scary road to be going down....


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 14, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> [FONT=&quot]There are a number of problems with that idea. [/FONT]
> 
> [FONT=&quot]1) There aren't enough teachers in the country to be that picky. I know, for example, that [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Arizona[/FONT][FONT=&quot] is absolutely desperate for teachers; if you have over twenty hours or so in a subject area, you are eligible for a teaching license (whereas states which have more teachers and better funding have higher standards). If teachers were required to maintain a 3.5 average or higher (as opposed to the standard 2.5), we'd have even greater shortages of teachers.[/FONT]
> 
> ...


 
d00d, I 'gree, buuuuuut:

1) they're firing teachers right now because they don't have money to pay, so you'd want the cream of the crop right now so that you can educate with the small force you can afford, an elite team that pays like a normal teacher, it's the perfect battle strategy, you don't know how many times I'd've liked to buy spacemarine like they were IG, seriously.

2&3 Part I) yeah, you can never really factor their personalities into the equation and get an answer, you take what you have and constantly monitor them, don't let them know tho, cause then they'll act accordingly, observe their natural environment interaction, then judge.

2&3 Part II) this doesn't mean, hire then fire, more like a free road test, tell them it's based on how high the student grades are, but pull a big brother on them, observe classroom behavior, student/teacher relations, student attentiveness, student response, and anything else I might have missed that sounds like a good idea.

otherwise, I agree


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 15, 2007)

The problem with it being based on students' grades... then you end up with fudging the numbers in order to keep their jobs ... and this goes for administrators as well as teachers. Pulling a Big Brother routine... never a good idea. That kind of pressure builds resentment, and your best people leave, the toadies stay and try to work their way up into _being_ Big Brother. It is also often the unconventional approach that works best with getting kids (or adults, for that matter) to learn, and unconventional approaches makes the people in power nervous, so they'd squelch what would be most likely to be most effective.

Bottom line... _NOTHING_ in life worth a damn has simple solutions. _NOTHING_ in life that is endemic to the human condition _HAS_ a solution; it's a constant struggle, a constant balancing act to try to find the best _workable _solution for that particular time. Sturgeon's Revelation (often miscalled Sturgeon's Law) applies here, as well: "90% of everything is crap." (That is, mediocre, more-or-less, according to other statements he made.) The closest we're likely to get to a solution is to start respecting teaching as a profession, encourage talented people to go into the field by making it at least reasonably competitive financially, and require periodic refreshers for teachers, while having a certain oversight (but not too much, as said, or you'll end up driving the best away)... and I just don't see that happening in a country where more emphasis is put on sports (because they do bring in a lot of needed cash for schools and universities) than academic achievement. To come anywhere near such a thing, you'll need parents behind such a movement... and that's just not likely to happen....


----------



## chrispenycate (Feb 15, 2007)

I was just thinking I should be trying to get a job as a teacher in Arizona - but no, I'd have to learn to speak American. Besides, infusing innocent kids (assuming any could be found) with my ideals, while probably better for society than radical islam, would probably be worse for the kids.

Basing teachers salaries on the academic results of their charges has been tried in the UK, and leads (as expected) to those who are best at politicking getting the most money. It is engraved in stone that children from the ticky-tacky belt (and they're doctors, and they're lawyers, and they're business executives) will get more qualifications than their blue collar and gangland equivalents, so posts in those schools are much sought after, while those who really need the best teachers, to awaken and nourish the potential in the difficult areas, are shunned. Everyone knows what the "two tier" education system gives; no-one has found an adequate solution (no, not the communists, or thetotalitarian states either; it just shifts where the best teachers are to be found)
So, the most important function in the world, equipping the next generation with the tools and attitudes to build the next layer of the future (with its own seeds for the continuing process) degenerates into a game of chance.


----------



## Azathoth (Feb 15, 2007)

Hey J.D. 


> And as for the legal system comments... No humor in this question, I'm afraid... About it having to be the accuser who carries the burden of proof... Just what country are you from, again?.... Sorry, but I've been through the court system, and sitting and watching it as well... if it was ever that way, it hasn't been for at least a good 20-30 years now. Ostensibly, it still is, but I'm very much afraid that's only lip service; especially when it comes to issues surrounding children. While I agree that we need to protect the children from harm, and try to do our best to make their world a better place... when it comes to getting into court, people should not be prejudged until the burden of proof says they're guilty.... relieve them of a position? Probably a good safety measure, while investigating (after all, we do that with police officers accused of undue force -- at least at times -- don't we? even if they turn out to be innocent). But our entire system seems to be veering into the "not proven" idea of a verdict, rather than "not guilty". And that's a very scary road to be going down....



Schaffer V. Weast (2005) overturned the previous ruling that the burden of proof specifically rested upon the school. You can find it here:

CEC | Supreme Court Rules on Special Education Case

So, at least the Supreme Court kicked that down before it became a serious issue.  Still, I find it disturbing that it was ever a law to begin with.



> The problem with it being based on students' grades... then you end up with fudging the numbers in order to keep their jobs ... and this goes for administrators as well as teachers. Pulling a Big Brother routine... never a good idea. That kind of pressure builds resentment, and your best people leave, the toadies stay and try to work their way up into _being_ Big Brother. It is also often the unconventional approach that works best with getting kids (or adults, for that matter) to learn, and unconventional approaches makes the people in power nervous, so they'd squelch what would be most likely to be most effective.



This is exactly what is happening with No Child Left Behind.  While the act does do one really awesome thing for education - it provides more funding - it puts way too much pressure on teachers to ensure that their students are performing well on the achievement tests.  This, in turn, leads to number-fudging, "teaching-the-test", and an emphasis on impressing Big Brother rather than giving the student's an actual education.  And it totally eliminates any freedom of curriculum; teachers are being told how, when, and what to teach, simply because the students *need* to do well on those tests, for the school's sake.


----------



## Azathoth (Feb 15, 2007)

Hey Chrispeny, 



> I was just thinking I should be trying to get a job as a teacher in Arizona - but no, I'd have to learn to speak American.



Lol, that's ok, most of us speak in monosyllables, so it wouldn't be too difficult for you to learn the American language.  



> So, the most important function in the world, equipping the next generation with the tools and attitudes to build the next layer of the future (with its own seeds for the continuing process) degenerates into a game of chance.



Kind of like playing Russian Roulette; we're just trying to get by without shooting ourselves in the face.

...That's a really depressing thought.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 15, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> Kind of like playing Russian Roulette; we're just trying to get by without shooting ourselves in the face.


 
The difference here is... we seem to have loaded five of the six chambers....

And yes, I rather had the "No Child Left Behind" thing in mind (at least, in part, though other programs have had the same problem in this area). But I've had practical, personal experience with this aspect of it, too.... When I was a lad going through high school, half the teachers who taught, say, mathematics, were coaches who were fine as coaches, but as maths teachers stunk on ice. (Some of them knew and could do the math beautifully, but simply couldn't convey it to students at all.) Then we had one teacher who made it his job to design problems for whatever level each individual student was on, so that they could _learn_, rather than parrot. Problem is, that meant that we weren't all on the same page the administration said we should be, so he was frequently admonished and put on notice... stress told, and he suffered a stroke. And the administration got their way, the students were "all on the same page", but 3/4 of them didn't have a clue, and yet somehow we all were bumped onto the next level....

To this day, I have trouble with several aspects of maths because the one teacher who was actually getting the stuff across to me effectively... wasn't allowed to do the job, while the mediocre ones were rewarded. Now, I'm sorry, but a system that works that way is just damned determined to blow this nation's brains out as quickly as possible, it seems to me.....


----------



## Azathoth (Feb 15, 2007)

> Now, I'm sorry, but a system that works that way is just damned determined to blow this nation's brains out as quickly as possible, it seems to me.....



Heh, you shouldn't be sorry for the truth.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 15, 2007)

Azathoth said:


> Heh, you shouldn't be sorry for the truth.


 
Ah, just me and my antique rhetorical style....


----------



## BookStop (Feb 15, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Then we had one teacher who made it his job to design problems for whatever level each individual student was on, so that they could _learn_, rather than parrot. Problem is, that meant that we weren't all on the same page the administration said we should be, so he was frequently admonished and put on notice... stress told, and he suffered a stroke. And the administration got their way, the students were "all on the same page", but 3/4 of them didn't have a clue, and yet somehow we all were bumped onto the next level....


 

My son had a kindergarden teacher who worked tirelessly to make sure every student learned and excelled. He did it by asking for help from parents, which I've never seen another teacher do. During orientation he asked all us parents to please, please volunteer as much time as we could. He never had a day of class without at least 2 parents there helping him. If he had a student who just wasn't getting it, he'd ask another adult to pitch in and expalin things another way. If that didn't work, another adult would step in. His entire class learned to read to a 2nd grade level, knew their times-tables, and occasionally greeted each other in Japanese. These were five year olds. This teacher was brilliant, and all he did that was so amazing was ask for help.

Now fast forward a couple years to local schools here in Georgia. Parents are actually discouraged from volunteering unless they can devote a certain number of hours and adhere to a specific schedule. Forget about dropping in unannounced to see if you can help. It's not allowed. I really get the feeling teachers want to have privacy in their classrooms and the only reason I can imagine they do, is so parents don't know how the teachers teach. (I was called into school after my child missed the bus. The teacher told me the bus was never announced. The children said they tried to tell her when it was announced because she had been talking on the phone, but she shushed them. When they told her after she hung up, she told them to sit quietly and wait. Then she lied to the parents that had to come pick up the kids. What kills me about this slight moral blunder, is there was no reason it. She could have just as easily told the parents the truth. It was no big deal, but she was so worried about how we would view her, she lied. It makes no sense.) *rant over*

Teachers are obsessed with 'no child left behind' and they do teach the test. It's so aggravating that they take a month out of their teaching schedule just to 'review' what might be on the test, sometimes having to skip other impt lessons.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Feb 15, 2007)

BookStop said:


> My son had a kindergarden teacher who worked tirelessly to make sure every student learned and excelled. He did it by asking for help from parents, which I've never seen another teacher do. During orientation he asked all us parents to please, please volunteer as much time as we could. He never had a day of class without at least 2 parents there helping him. If he had a student who just wasn't getting it, he'd ask another adult to pitch in and expalin things another way. If that didn't work, another adult would step in. His entire class learned to read to a 2nd grade level, knew their times-tables, and occasionally greeted each other in Japanese. These were five year olds. This teacher was brilliant, and all he did that was so amazing was ask for help.



The big problem with having parents volunteer in the classroom, at least around here, is that anyone who works with kids in a school envirnoment has to go through a background check and have their fingerprints taken.  The expense for this falls to the individual wanting to do the volunteering.  I'm not sure how many parents a) could afford and b) would want to go to the expense (generally somewhere between $50 and $100, from what I've heard) to do that and then not get compensated for the time they put in.  The other issue is the fact that many children either come from 1-parent families or have two parents who both work.  I doubt there would be many employers willing to give parents time off to volunteer in the classroom...especially since I know of all too many cases when they don't even want to give a couple of hours off on a one time basis for the parent to attend their child's high school graduation...which are often held in the morning or afternoon in our local school districts.


----------



## BookStop (Feb 16, 2007)

littlemissattitude said:


> The big problem with having parents volunteer in the classroom, at least around here, is that anyone who works with kids in a school envirnoment has to go through a background check and have their fingerprints taken. The expense for this falls to the individual wanting to do the volunteering. I'm not sure how many parents a) could afford and b) would want to go to the expense (generally somewhere between $50 and $100, from what I've heard) to do that and then not get compensated for the time they put in. The other issue is the fact that many children either come from 1-parent families or have two parents who both work. I doubt there would be many employers willing to give parents time off to volunteer in the classroom...especially since I know of all too many cases when they don't even want to give a couple of hours off on a one time basis for the parent to attend their child's high school graduation...which are often held in the morning or afternoon in our local school districts.


 
The teacher here never left parents nsupervised with the children, so no background checks needed. Many children had parents who didn't ever volunteer, but there were enough stay-at-home parents that wanted to helpout so it was never a problem. THe enjoyment they got out of volunteering and seeing the children excell seemed to be worth the lack of personal time and pay. I myself volunteered only very occasionally as I used schooltime to sleep. I worked until very late 2-2:30 and needed the extra time to myself. No one thought less of me for it though 

Now as the children got older, more parents that were stay-at-home tended to go back to work making volunteering considerably less likely, but a few still did.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Feb 17, 2007)

BookStop said:


> The teacher here never left parents nsupervised with the children, so no background checks needed.



Unfortunately, the issue here in this area (I don't know if it a school-district rule or a state law) is not whether or not someone will be left alone with children.  All individuals who work with underage children in the schools...teachers, aides, lunch ladies, even janitors as far as I know...have to go through a background check before they can work with kids.


----------



## Michael01 (Feb 17, 2007)

Wow, this thread really seems to have branched off into many different directions. I'll try to stick with the original questions posed, if I can. 

I'm not going to make any assumptions about the morality of smoking pot, but I will say this (from experience): it does cause problems (or it has for me, at least)--both short term and long term. This has a lot to do with why I quit smoking the stuff--although I liked it and smoked it for more than 20 years. I'll admit that addiction is not an excuse. Whether or not I am addicted to a substance, I still need to take responsibility for my actions.

Short term use causes memory problems and long term use causes health problems. I've had more respiratory infections from smoking pot than anything else; more difficulty breathing (whether or not I smoked cigs); it increases the desire for cigarettes, which are definitely bad for the heart and lungs; it can cause panic attacks; and it increases pain in the joints (so if you're prone to arthritis don't smoke pot!). It also damages the sinuses.

Moreover, it definitely is NOT safe to operate machinery or drive a car under the influence of marijuana (regardless of what anyone else might say), because it DOES slow reactions, among other things. I thank God that I haven't had any fatal or even debilitating accidents (for me or anyone else involved), but such things are HIGHLY PROBABLE under the influence of marijuana.

It's true that a lot of things described in the "anti-pot" commercials can happen just as easily when you're sober. However, one thing that is definitely true is that it zaps you of your motivation. The first 5-8 years of smoking it increased my imagination and made writing stories more worthwhile, but as time went on I was less and less likely to DO ANYTHING AT ALL--let alone write.

Not everyone's experience will be the same as mine, but I can at least say that it wasn't good for me.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Feb 18, 2007)

dude, my motivation is down the drain already, what would pot do to that I wonder... damn, I don't think I can get lower than I am, probably wrong tho... dunno, not gonna try that's for sure


----------



## Michael01 (Feb 18, 2007)

shucks, the fact that you strung a few words together for your post shows you have some motivation--however slight


----------

