J.C.MacSwell

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why not on this one?

Because here, although we have evolved to have the capacity for peaceful coexistence, we have also all evolved to have the capacity for instinct to take advantage of those that demonstrate excessive pacifism.

When not sure we tend to poke the bear to find out...

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

 

But you don't have to kill anyone to achieve it.

On what planet?

On 12/11/2023 at 11:08 AM, Phi for All said:

I think calling it Utopia is misguided. If we can have a society where we don't stupidly ignore the worst pressures and stresses so an elite can have more than others, it's not going to be perfect for everyone, but hopefully it can have far fewer people barely clinging to their existence and also far fewer people buying shadow yachts with servants and toys trailing the main yacht. 

 

You used the term "heaven on Earth" which is essentially utopia by most definitions...or at least much closer to it than what you describe here which is much closer to what I thought was plausible with or without religion.. So I think we can at least agree that there is plenty of  room for practical improvements. You can certainly point at religious faith being part of the problem when corrupted in certain manners but removal certainly doesn't guarantee success.

On 12/11/2023 at 11:08 AM, Phi for All said:

Really? The first four are about their god being jealous. The fifth assumes your parents knew exactly what they were doing, and helps set up the vertical morality the church wants. The rest all focus on negative aspects of our existence, rather than a more positive, uplifting, I don't know... spiritual stance. We're commanded not to kill instead of being commanded to honor life. We're commanded not to steal rather than being commanded to respect the property of others. Modern psychology has a LOT to say about focusing on the negative, none of it good.

Yeah. I don't believe they are that bad. Some of them to a "fill in the details" extent are incorporated in some of our better laws. Our laws don't force you to abide by them all.

To be tolerant of them you need to look at them in a historical sense (not that I'm any biblical scholar). The concepts, and similar ones prior and in other religions, helped societies and individuals survive. They were "fitter" in that sense than having none.

Modern psychology may have some paths to improvement but is far from a hard science. Much of it doesn't lend itself well to scientific method and especially where it doesn't it certainly gets strong doses of human nature, both good and bad. In any event any advantages of any advancements were not  available back when the Ten Commandments were carved in stone. Also Moses would have broken his back carrying down all the tablets you would need for your caveats and improvements...😇😀

On 12/11/2023 at 11:08 AM, Phi for All said:

I think removing the concept that there are people who are more worthy than you will have a dramatic effect on our humanity. If the only help we can expect is from each other, I think others will have much more value. I also think bad human nature will no longer have a pious place to hide.

 

Unfortunately even if you removed every religion from the face of the Earth doesn't take that with it. We're kind of stuck with it in that without eradicating it from our DNA it would be back in a heartbeat if you could get rid of it from religions...

22 hours ago, iNow said:

 

All of those things can equally be derived from other social communities and groupings like sports teams, knitting clubs, Star Wars fans, etc. People can come together and lend one another support and comfort and grace in nearly any other social setting. Religion need not ever enter the equation.

...continuing from above...sports teams, knitting clubs, Star Wars fans etc.

Not to mention political parties...

...or science forums...(though admittedly many don't have it formalised in negative and positive reputation points...😄)

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I fully take on your point of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and agree wholeheartedly.

However, while monolithic organisations are able to claim ownership and flag wave these beneficial ethics as symbols of their fitness to hold sway, rather than see much in way of benefit we tend to get lumbered with all the detestable baggage following on in the wake. 

 

Even the best of intentions get twisted in favour of those in positions of power...all a matter of time...something enduring religions have had a lot of...

But how much better can we do unburdened by some of the more detrimental aspects of religious faith?

...and how do we get there?

It seems to me the right amount of religious and atheistic tolerance would be helpful, just as the acceptance of some of the worst aspects would not be.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

The goal may indeed be very distant; possibly unattainable for many generations to come. But is that any reasonable excuse to stay clinging on to the old shackles of the distant past that have clearly denied so many the opportunity to realise their full potential for so long? 

No.Not at all. If you read my immediately previous post...

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think we are limited to just making progress and I think we are capable of that if we work at it...possibly even with the help of some of the better religious teachings from all faiths...and hopefully with the reduction of the detrimental ones.

 

I did cite the Ten Commandments as being not bad. I didn't claim they were perfect.

Human nature being what it is we do need to work toward a set of ethics we can hold people to.

In utopia of course you don't need them.

I think it is easy to blame the Nazis for Naziism and similar level atrocities, but if we want to avoid becoming part of it it's important to recognize we are all born capable of the same. 

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

I do. I think religion is the single most dangerous, evil, superstitious, dehumanizing practices we have ever allowed to be perpetrated on decent humans, and I think the vertical morality it engenders has held us back for millenia. I would argue that the Abrahamic religions alone have stunted our growth as moral intellectuals, and that without them we'd have a much firmer grasp of the importance of this very thin band of atmosphere that holds every bit of life we know about.

That reflects on why you think religions are detrimental, and I can partially agree. 

What makes you think we can reach utopia if unburdened by religion?

Human nature, both the good and bad, will still affect the process.

The Ten Commandments are really not that bad...but even the one's who believe in them most break them...along with Atheists, Agnostics, and everyone else.

On 12/4/2023 at 9:12 PM, Phi for All said:

 

My assertion was "If religious faith disappeared, the rest of us could progress and create heaven here on Earth." 

 

Do you really believe we are capable of that just through elimination of religious beliefs?

I can see some aspects of religious beliefs being detrimental, but I can't see even elimination of all of those leading to heaven on Earth...though it might go some way toward reducing Hell on Earth.

I'm not sure if there is any religious faith pervasive in the rest of the Animal Kingdom...but I see plenty of angst out there even within same species.

I guess we are smarter than them but are we smart enough? Is our DNA wired in such a way it could possibly work?

I think we are limited to just making progress and I think we are capable of that if we work at it...possibly even with the help of some of the better religious teachings from all faiths...and hopefully with the reduction of the detrimental ones.

It's a small planet and we evolved in a much bigger one relatively speaking.

We also evolved with religious beliefs. It may have helped in our survival, with the "fitter" (don't read as more or less ethical) religions evolving and out surviving less "fit" ones.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

For that three minute period when Nikki was explaining why America should send troops into Mexico, I was able to view Trump as slightly less insane.  

Then the moment passed and I went back to hoping Trump wins the nomination and makes Biden's job much easier.  Trump is his own best Democratic political attack ad.   

I will certainly admit that's a pretty questionable position, especially for someone who is supposed to be strong on foreign policy.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Capable and smart, but cynical and lacking in consistent principles. She’s a very skilled political operator who moves her position swiftly to align with the polls, but even dead leaves can go with the flow. We need leaders who shape it, not just get carried by it. 

At 40-60 points behind, she only stands a chance if Trump is somehow subtracted from the equation, and even then Trump voters are far more likely to flow to DeSantis. 

Desantis is behind by just as much and has lost ground to her to the point it's fairly even. If she gets clear ahead and he fades he might not be around or at most on life support at the subtraction point...if there is one.

Of course Inow, you do know you have to vote for her if it comes down to her and Biden...she is after all a women, and Biden is an old white guy...😀

Nikki Haley seems to be decent, composed, and not just reasonable but forthcoming with explaining her stances on issues.

Not sure if she can overtake Trump but she certainly should, and if so is more likely than Trump to beat Biden, IMO.

9 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

 

With an average of 20 Palestinian deaths per Israeli death, before October 7, I suppose the reduction of this ratio and the cessation of hostilities in Gaza both depend on how right wing the politicians in Israel and the US are.

If the reduction of that ratio is based on a smaller number of Jews that obviously would be better. If it is based on a larger number of Palestinians then obviously not.

Given that Israel controls a Holy Land shared by 100 times as many Muslims as Jews worldwide, and 200 times as many as live in Israel, it is fairly obvious that any seemingly reasonable ratio is not going to work for the continuing existence of Israel if it is to submit or reply "reasonably" to attacks. Clearly Hamas doesn't care enough about Palestinian lives.

Good post joigus. I will add what I alluded to earlier...if Gaza is a concentration camp with guarded borders (I do realize Zap didn't make that claim but others have made the comparison) Egypt is certainly maintaining its role in the confinement.

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yeah, leave the fox in charge of the chicken hut...

Rare though, to see chickens swing open the doors and go fox hunting...

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

Well, ultimately what has to happen is that the voices of consensus builders are elevated. I.e. having the Likud and Hamas in power (and by now it has been extensively discussed how Netanyahu's anti-two state strategy has empowered Hamas) the cycle of violence is likely only to continue. The other aspect is the one of outcome. Sure killing folks now eliminates them as immediate risk, but with a longer view it is abundantly clear that this also creates a vast (international) recruitment ground for Hamas and their allies. I am not saying that doing nothing is a great strategy, but we also know that a violent outburst is not solving things easier (just take a look at the US wars in the Middle East). 

I think the Israeli policy of isolating the West Bank is also not to be underestimated as an issue, specifically the state-supported settler violence: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/14/1212836719/ex-idf-soldier-calls-for-international-intervention-to-stop-settler-violence

In other word, the discussion cannot only be about the current violence, but also the paths leading to it. Again, a blame game about who is justified to what level of violence just reinforces bloodshed. The system that has been implemented supposedly to protect Israel, clearly have failed and there is little reason to assume that escalating the violence will improve situations. As many folks have stated, this is similar to the US lashing out after 9/11 and as expected, we fail to learn from past lessons.

I can agree with much of that but where is the path to Peace? From now or even from October 7. I had faint hope that the Truce would continue and buy some time but how does Israel step back, whether now or from October 7.

Hamas didn't just declare war on them. They committed atrocities and went back and hid behind the civilians they claim to represent.

If Israel backs off Hamas remains in power. The UN wants Israel to stop the carnage, which is commendable to ask for, condemns Hamas's actions, also commendable, but has proposed that Israel must stop while offering to do nothing about Hamas...not a good look for the UN, even if it's not a good look for the US to have to veto such an impotent proposal.

Russia of course (probably the only winner in all this) was on board with the UN proposal...even though they've threatened use of Nuclear weapons for less than what Israel sustained on October 7.

Something has to be done to break through the hate, and clearly Israel leaving Hamas in charge with their current agenda in place isn't going to do it, and no one else but Israel are both capable and willing to remove them from power.

So two civilians in the way of a Hamas terrorist and they shoot to kill, 3 in the way they wait for a better shot. If they can't get a better one they eventually feel they have to take it. They've learned from a long history, including well before the Holocaust, that if they want to exist they have to rely on themselves.

It's far from being right but what are they to do? What can anyone on either side wanting peaceful coexistence do? Explain that while pointing fingers.

Not that fingers don't need pointed as well.

It of course gets complicated as I am sure there are some in Hamas that are in it to help administrate some aspects of decent governance, don't approve of the worst terrorist acts, but fail to see any means of change for the better beyond what they might achieve through working with Hamas.

...and of course many in the population might support them to some degree.

All more or less by design of the more powerful within Hamas.

So we are seeing the results of a general hate for Israel, and a willingness to support some aspects of Hamas and submit to others where no alternative is currently available.

You see Hamas hospital administrators that know damn well there are tunnels and possibly dens underneath them. Are they supporting and protecting Hamas terror? Or are they trying to run a hospital with what they can best manage to get from Hamas while not feeling they owe Israel the risk of speaking out?

On 12/2/2023 at 1:47 PM, TheVat said:

 

So this leads me to wonder, as bombing has now resumed by Israel, of the southern part of Gaza, where are all these civilians supposed to flee to while the war continues.

 

Certainly not further south into the Sanai. Egypt doesn't want them there, even though the Gazans don't seem to espouse elimination of the Egyptian population.

Egypt has reasons for confining them as well, as does the rest of the countries of the Middle East, and the World for that matter.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

How? It would make you warmer than no blanket, because it would prevent convection, catch radiation and raise humidity. 

I guess you could make a case for a cooling blanket in direct sunlight, but really, it's action would be as a shade, not a blanket.

Same way a colder one would. Conduction primarily. Until at least the inside of it approaches body surface temperature it's a heat sink.

Sit on a metal chair at room temperature. It's immediately cooling in a way that a cushioned one would not be, at least not to the same extent. 

On 11/19/2023 at 6:28 PM, mistermack said:

The term "cooling blanket" is a bit scammy. But it seems to be an accepted scam, since there are so many using it, and such high prices. 

In reality, no blanket can be a "cooling blanket" unless it comes out of a fridge or freezer. Any blanket will restrict convection, and raise humidity next to the skin.  A justification might be "well, it's cooling compared to a standard blanket" which might well be true, but a truthful description would be a "less warming blanket". 

You might reasonably argue that anyone with half a brain would work that out, and that the title was just acceptable marketing hype, and the people who buy it would just expect a blanket that was less warming than an ordinary one. But I would disagree, there are plenty of people out there so gullible, that they would take it literally. 

I like something covering me, even when it's too hot at night. Hot clear nights can cool quite quickly, and you fall asleep needing nothing, but wake up cold. Also, some sort of covering might keep insects off, it's an instinct that we might be born with. An old cotton sheet is my favourite when it's hot. As cotton gets older, and more washed, it becomes more absorbent and softer. 

A room temperature blanket can be one, even if it would last longer coming out of a fridge or freezer. Unless your body temperature is room temperature...

One would hope that the Truce gets extended. The current price seems to be 10 Israeli hostages per day, which I think includes release of 30 Palestinian prisoners if the 3 to 1 ratio they've used holds.

The longer the Truce lasts the more potential likely exists for some long term agreement, I would expect. Though I would also expect Israel would stay determined to eliminate Hamas, short of Hamas clearly accepting the right to existence for the state of Israel, and abandoning their stated goal of Israel's elimination.

Unlikely, but maybe some other temporary semi-peaceful coexistence can result, as it seemed but clearly wasn't before the Hamas atrocities of October 7.

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

As it is, North Gaza is essentially destroyed, over a million are homeless and facing a grim future in refugee camps, and....this is ridding the world of Hamas how?  This is just insuring a robust version of Hamas 2.0 that will regroup in sympathetic nations, raise money from donors whose hatred of Israel has only been ratcheted up, and prepare for the next stage of war.  

 

Right. Which is what Hamas and those that backed them in their latest terror attack on Israel wanted. Maybe not the completeness of the violent retaliation, but certainly the re-igniting of the hatred toward Israel.

I agree both sides have blood on their hands. I just don't see what other options either side has available given the hatred of Israel by all those that have suffered from it's creation and existence, historically and recently. Certainly Israel cannot trust terrorists with clearly stated objectives to eliminate their existence, yet there seems to be little they can do to eliminate the threat without using means that would perpetuate it.

Both sides, for the most part, were born with the problem.

9 hours ago, CharonY said:

IIRC Argentine pegged their Pesos against USD in the 90s (because of hyperinflation). One could look at the outcomes then.

Not the same thing though. That would require a central bank actively working to peg the currency and/or guaranteeing the value of the Peso to the USD.

13 hours ago, toucana said:

Popularly known as ‘El Loco’ (the madman), his economic  objectives include replacing the peso with the US dollar and “blowing up” the central bank.

One salient factor that probably influenced many voters was a deep economic crisis that had seen the annual inflation rate rise to 143%, with around 40% of Argentines living below the poverty line.

 

Replacing the Argentinian Peso with the USD could certainly tame the mess of the 143% inflation...though of course they abdicate control of any monetary policy and make their Central bank redundant

Be interesting to see how that works out.

I use one. It's a poor insulator, or maybe also understood as a good conductor compared to other blankets and has a bit of weight to it. So when you cover yourself with it at room temperature it it cools you at least toward equilibrium being reached.

But the main purpose I think is having the weight of a "security" blanket without the insulation. 

I'm a baby at heart...

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

I (like every other sane person) feel 100% that I make my own decisions for one.  

So a predetermined sense of free will for all sane individuals?

59 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I put our free will at 100%.  By that I mean the future is not predetermined.  I can choose to do anything that is physically possible, the result of my choice may have dire consequences, but I am certainly free to make that choice.

You seem to have convinced yourself. How have you managed to do that?

That's pretty funny!