Athena

Zapatos "I was hoping this thread would stay on topic but I guess there is no such hope. So, here goes..."

 

No one wanted this thread to stay on topic more than I did, but now I realize how fortunate I am that it did not. I have learned far more than I ever expected. Among the things I learned, is what the power to ban someone for not showing evidence, or not answering a question, can do to a thread and the course of a discussion. I wanted to ignore those who taking the thread off topic, and then realized they could claim I was violating rules, by ignoring the questions that have made the thread about me, instead of the subject. But now I know how someone brought up in front of the Star Chamber must have felt, and I am delighted by this insight into history.

 

Zapatos "It starts in the very first sentence of the very first post, suggesting the mods might be up to no good".

Quote Athena "moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing".

 

 

What is wrong with what I said? Humans make mistakes, do they not? I am talking about our human folly. Nothing of bad intent was implied, and it most certainly was not said with bad intent. It is the number one reason for having a trial by a jury, because the many are more apt to come to the truth than one. Do you see the difference between my intent and what have been accused of doing? For me this whole thread is evidence of what I speak. Only a couple of people interpreted my intention of this thread correctly, and made it worth returning to. Others accepted the interpretation that I have acted with malice and intend to do harm. That is why trials are necessary. The quote is right, but it is the interpretation of it that makes all the difference. Did you notice the "might" in there? This is a question, not an accusation, and the question is asked because we make errors.

 

 

Quote

 

May I ask what makes a group of mods better than England's infamous Star Chamber?

 

This one is rather obvious.

 

What is obvious? The Star Chamber did not begin as a politically corrupt body of judges. It began as a more efficient way of handling cases, and everyone thought it was a good idea. The very same reason why forums do things the way are done. What matters here is not what the people have done, but how they are organized. We changed the organization of the justice system, to correct the problems that come being with human. I like to believe everyone's intentions are good, past and present, but we make errors, and this is the reason we attempt to organize ourselves to compensate for our humanness. It is way we have divided powers and trials by a jury of peers. Oh, and thanks to this thread, I got a deeper understanding of this. The jury must not be "us" against "them", as it is in all forums. I don't know it people are getting this concept? Question it if you don't understand, okay? This is sooo on topic!

 

 

Athena- "Someone has been accusing me of very awful things, and even suggesting I am guilty of criminal charges".

 

Zapatos-"Now you are suggesting that if one mod is annoyed with someone they will make up a rules violation just to get even".

No that is not want I said. I said he was angry and the anger caused him to think mean things, and he projected that meanness on me. I also thought when the anger passed, he wanted to take back his words. Is the concept of projection understood? This is human error, and why it is important to check our judgment.

 

 

 

 

Athena "It has been my experience, that when a mod becomes annoyed with someone",

 

Zapatos "And not only is the annoyed mod unfair, but another mod will be willing to jettison his integrity to unjustly gang up on you".

This is a prefect example is wrong with accusing someone of something and that person having no defense. Look at how much you have added to the information. You add that I am saying mods make up violations, and that another mod will be willing to jettison his integrity. I never said anything like that, but that thought is coming from your own mind, because in your mind that is logical, and you have projected your logic into me. But I didn't even come close to a thought like that. I am blown away that by the magic of our minds work, you can honestly believe that thought came from me. If you can accept that explanation came from your own mind, not my words, than you can realize the problem that I did say exist. This is what I mean by point of view. You are coming at me from a mod's point of view, and adding that point to view to what I said, distorting what said, to fit your logic. This is not your intention, is what humans do. Our brains put things together on a subconscious level, and play all kinds of tricks on us. As the well meaning judges of old, you are trying to make sense of everything, and where are there a blanks, you brain is offering you a logical explanation. You and the men of old are just human beings with good intentions. If you want I will google for a psychological explanation of what I just said, because if the words come from science instead of me, you might understand them differently. Coming from me, I am afraid you will see another "attack", instead of a scientific explanation of how judgment can be messed up.

 

 

Athena- "In a short time another mod finds that this person is violating rules. It appears that the group effort is to protect the group, regardless of what group, children service people, the police, or mods...

 

Zapatos- "I guess this one is up to personal interpretation, but what many seem to see as asking you to put up or shut up, you see as a personal attack".

 

It is easy to show you want I have observed, but I think this should be handled in a pm. What you all do not seem to get, is how hard I am trying to handle this, and protect the dignity of mod too. I am not pointing my figure at one mod and accusing him of wrong doing. And just because what I believe is happening is what is happening, that doesn't mean anyone's intentions are bad.

 

Athena- "The mods who are attacking me"

]

Zapatos- "Pretty clearly suggesting that mods may be gaining access to your personal messages and surreptitiously deleting them in order to hide their own bad behavior and to suppress your defense".

 

Quote

 

Is it possible for mods to delete private messages?

 

Now you are asking a mod to admit guilt of threatening you and admit they then deleted your personal messages.

 

QuoteOne of you should pm, zapatos and confirm those accusations were made in a moment of emotional distress, and later, when better judgment was resumed, you decided to take back those words

 

And of course since a mod destroyed the evidence, you cannot even defend yourself.

 

 

Boy, you really worked at trying to prove how awful I am with that one. That is exactly the behavior I am talking when I speak of a point of view and what mods do. Thank you.

 

Now here is my reply.

 

Yes, I had a paranoid moment, and who wouldn't want to delete something said in at bad moment? Like you filled in blanks with your own logic, so I did I. That is part of being human.

 

The Capt'n corrected me, and I realized I deleted the message myself, to prevent myself from replying to something so offensive. However, I found the pm in my email and posted it, without the mods name, to both protect myself and him. Again, if you had a bad moment, would you want someone posting it? On the other hand, I felt pressured to prove what I said did happen, so posted the thinking that full of malice and I assume were spoken in anger.

 

In case you have not noticed, I really respect the Capt'n. I have turned to him a few times, and I like the way he handles things, and also how he stays out of things that do not interest him.

 

I am really bored with this and I am sure everyone else is too. We can pick the rest up later if you still want to carry this on.

False. Please support that assertion.

 

Okay, democracy is an imitation of the gods, and humans can imitate them because they were made in the image of the gods. Of course that is mythology, but within the mythology is truth. The trick is, you have to want to truth before you can find it, and if you are intolerant, that is not possible.

name='anotherfilthyape' timestamp='1336886699' post='677557']

Any system can be corrupted... Computers can be hacked, and we would need them to have artificial intelligence and I bet that artificial intelligence implies personal interests and thus a mean to be bought... But if you keep the trials public and allow a professional jury to be analysed by detectives if they are suspicious you would have a measure to reduce corruption...

 

I love your effort to figure out how we might avoid human malice and human error to have fair trials, but I am afraid the only thing we can do is deal with our humanness. This is a matter of spirit. Oh, God, I am really going to get nailed for preaching now, because I am talking of our spirit.

 

Those who have been intent on accusing me of attacking the mods, are being mean spirited, and remind me of what Charles Sarolea wrote about what happened to the German spirit when the Prussians took over. We adopted German institutions and replaced classical philosophy with German philosophy, so the same thing is happening to us, and this thread is making me realize vividly the danger of the path we are on.

 

We can achieve perfection. Now what? Look in your heart. What do you feel? Never before have I realized so clearly, that is where we must begin. Look at the accusations and my efforts to defend myself. Don't the accusers look like angry people yelling at the witch? While, like Joan of Ark, I know it is my intentions to stand for that which our statue of liberty of stands, and that is not about accusing mods and it has been understood by my accusers. Does God speak to me? Am I possessed by the devil and should I burned as a witch? Technology is not going to resolve the problem of our humanness. I so understand what is happening here, as exactly like what happened when Jews or witches or lepors were persecuted. This is an experience of history I never dreamed I could have.

 

Professional judges will do better why? Professional judges will be different from the Star Chamber how? I don't mean to dash your hopes with no sensitivity to how awful it feels when our hopes are ruined, but we are human. What we think and believe is true, is so much a matter of our hearts, and it must never, ever become us against them. For the first time ever, I realize vividly why the jury must be us. For the first time I vividly see the problem we create when it becomes "us" against "them", you know those people who only want to make trouble. Awe the power and glory of being the guard against "those people" and should not all bow to them? Hegel, the state is God, and everyone should submit to the state. Or we can trust the professional judges, because they have been trained, and they sit above us like gods, and we are glad to leave the responsibility of judging to them.

 

 

Then you are recognizing some religious bias on your part... Democracy has no need for religion, indeed the founding fathers of the United States, inspired in the French Revolution (such thinkers as Thomas Paine) were against any religious thought gaining hegemony over all others, some were agnostics, some were atheists and some were deists and deists are sort of "I believe in a deity but not in religion"... The Us has evolved a lot from the time the bible was used to justify slavery (parts of the bible justify it) to these tiems that the bible is used to justify homophobia... Other countries that lacked common law evolved by osmosis but I am pretty sure that the US is in no way the avant garde of freedom in the world...

 

God is not religion until attempt to define God. Democracy is directly tied to a notion of God and morals. Read the classics and especially Cicero. Well that is perhaps too much reading, but at least goolge Cicero's understanding of God. It is really vital to democracy, and now I realize more than ever before, vital to our being less prone to make human errors. (I never expected to get so much from this forum, and it would not have been possible if were not for those made post that advance the discussion. Thank you. This is what democracy works and why we must have protected freedom of speech.) Literacy in the day of our forefathers might literacy in the Greek and Roman classics and this is vital to defending democracy. Without it, we are destroying our democracy and are not the good world neighbors, we once were. WE NO LONGER UNDERSTAND THAT FOR WHICH WE STAND AND THIS IS WHY THIS THREAD AND MANY OTHERS WERE OPENED. People are looking for technological correctness, and they need to look at their hearts.

 

 

I dont know much about the history of law but as a person interested in ethics and politics and its history I know the Athenian democracy was very different from modern democracies... It was some sort of aristocracy... The demos against the laos was an elite.

 

Oh the pain of it, I must run off. It is Mothers Day you know, and family calls. This discussion is so hot and so inspiring, I hate to leave it. Check our Tocqueville and aristocracy if you can. I don't believe aristocracy is a bad thing. Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this discussion happen!

Let me get this straight. You start the thread by saying "It has been said that I accuse of moderators doing things they do not do, and from my point of view, moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing. For example trolling, and preaching. " (The emphasis is mine)

 

Then you say that

" It is about the importance of public trials and juries, but it keeps getting taken off topic, by people who insist I am attacking mods."

Well, do you realise that people are doing that because they see your first post in the thread - the one that says "moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing" - as an attack on the mods?

 

Anyway, as you say "The best way to handle this is to talk about what is happening in this thread, and compare it to the historical Star Chamber."

OK, let's do that.

The start chamber could torture you to death. The mods can stop you posting in this one tiny corner of the internet (but they have not).

 

No, I do not realize people are doing what they are doing because I said moderators have accused others of doing things they might be doing. I am rather blown away by the defensiveness.

 

I preach but I am not nailed for preaching, and no one got uptight about preaching when someone preached the evils of wheat. However, if someone says something about God that a mod disapproves, this is preaching. I get uptight about this, because if preaching is a reason for banning someone, I could be banned at anytime. Someone just has to decide I haven't worded myself correctly and I am out of here. These violations of the rules, are not like murder or stealing where there is hard evidence of a crime, because if someone is violating a rule is matter of how we judge another, and that person's intention, and that is not hard evidence. The same with trolling. Long ago, in another forum a mod got very angry with me and accused me of trolling. I was never before accused of trolling and have not been accused of trolling since. I also left the forum, because that particular mod was abusing her power and nothing was done about it. My point is, if I am trolling or not depends on how someone else judges me and my intent. What is like the Star Chamber is how these judgments are made and the power of those who make them, while the person being judged has no defense.

 

It is taking a risk to come into this thread and say a mod accused me of being offensive and did not allow me to defend myself, because, the way this thread is going, that could be interpreted as accusing a mod. It is taking a risk to come into this thread and say maybe we should talk about the similarity between how the Star Chamber did things and how the mods are doing them, and why we decided to do things differently and have expensive and time consuming public trials with juries, because, arguing in favor of what I am trying to do, would be arguing against what the people with power believe is important here, and what they believe is important here is not the subject of the thread. The thread would look very different if people thought the subject were important.

 

The Star Chamber couldn't have people put to death, but in away banning people is similar to killing them. Excommunication was historically one of the strongest threats held over people, and it was especially used by the church as a means to control what people talked about. Keep in mind I am speaking of human nature, and steps we have taken to prevent the abuse of power. I am also talking about this in a nation that protects freedom of religion with a constitution, but where citizens with power, no longer believe freedom of religions is a good thing, and make rules against preaching, and label things said about God that they do not like, as preaching. Surely I can find the post where this happened. It didn't happen to me, but to someone else, and I thought whoo, we better talk about this. I have since read over the rules more carefully, and see there are a few rules that can be used to prevent someone discussing his/her religious beliefs. This is pretty black and white. I checked a few science forums, and they all have rules that can be used to prevent someone from talking about his.her religious beliefs, in a country that has a constitution protecting freedom of religion. Perhaps you could argue the constitution only limits what government can do, but then I would say, we are the government. And I would ask, how do we protect our liberty? That is the important issue that I talk about, and I talk about it so much it could be labeled preaching.

 

Of what am I accusing the mods? I am saying the things that people are banned for doing, are a matter of the judgment of moderators, who come to their decisions like the Star Chamber. Many years ago it was decided the way the Star Chamber judged people was not a good way of doing things. Is that statement wrong? Is it accusing the mods to question this problem of problem of judgment and lack of defense? Is this a matter of political awareness and our liberty as I think it is?

 

I have the impression that you are a traditionalist... I'm a liberal (if that term can apply to me, I'm not from the US or intersted in politics centred on a single country, but US liberals support gay marriage and abortion which I support), a social democrat, a direct democrat and a transhumanist... I believe it would be great if we advanced studies in cloning with no regard to what the church says... When I make the distinction between a good scientist knowing science and philosophy and a good engineer knowing science and more science is because I think that a good scientist must understand that scientific skeptism is a pragmatic approach to philosophical skepticism and a good scientist must understand ontology, philosophy of language, gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science... I dont think a good scientist needs, in order to be so, to know politics and ethics (it would help them but they can be good scientists without knowing either); knowing politics means they can better promote themselves, knowing ethics means they can participate in discussions of medical ethics, bioethics and other realms of study where science and ethics mix, but a good scientist needs to know ontology, philosophy of language, gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science to better understand their own work... Just like a good ethicist needs to know human sciences and ethology... I believe that even with crippling overspecialization modern people need to know beyond their own field of study, be some sort of polymaths, to be good and unique... But I dont think science needs to be controlled much... On the other hand I could argue that an engineer could benefit from ethics more than a scientist because he/she could realize that nanobots are a double edged weapon that can do greater harm than good if they fall on the wrong hands... But you can be a great engineer without understanding ontology, philosophy of language, gnoseology, epistemology and philosophy of science...

 

And well, I believe democracy can work without trial by jury... You know how many countries practice trial by jury? http://en.wikipedia....i/Trial_by_jury I tried confirming if Switzerland used it or not but I could not understand the conclusion... I think trial by jury is worse because I cannot trust laymen to be good peers and they are not always peers... A psychologist that kills a patient because the psychologist determined his patient had the power to decimate the city with a nuclear bomb and the psychologist could not betray his professional secrecy by revealing his patient's plan can be considered the peer of low class citizens that barely managed to finish high school? Can a dutch foreigner be considered the peer of US citizens? Who determines peerage? I prefer professional judges... Better said. I prefer a non-layman jury (a sort of bunch of under-judges) that follows principles of common law (their decision must change as newer trials are done) when the true and higher judge follows the principles of Civil law (his or her decision follows a stable constitution that can only be modified by the congress, point by point or by creating a new constitution from zero)...

 

Hot damn that was one good argument! Personally, I have wondered why we don't use computers to do the judging. I could go on and on about the corruption of our justice system. I had no idea there was a possible good human alternative.

 

I believe our public trials are very important to democracy, but then my understanding of democracy is unlike anyone else's, and oh boy, here is where the charge of me preaching can be made. My understanding of democracy is all tied up with a belief about god and morals, and I talk about this every chance I get. During the golden age of Athens democracy, which was very short lived, jurist were paid for jury duty, to assure everyone had the chance to participate on the jury, and this was seen as essential to legitimate authority and protecting everyone's rights. But rather than me doing all the talking, I want to know about your system. How does your system work? How many judges hear a case? Do you have a prosecutor and an attorney for the defendant? Are these public trials or closed to the public? What measures are taken to assure justice?

 

The qualities of a good scientist are a different subject. I have too many threads going or I would suggest one for exploring a possible need to control science and protect humanity. The religious and secular communities are at war with each other, and I believe the foundation of this war is justified on both sides. Considering all the science forums restrict discussion of religion, and that we have become amoral, I am deeply concerned. This is not good for democracy and liberty which is god and morals without religion. Which brings me to...

 

A psychologist that kills a patient because the psychologist determined his patient had the power to decimate the city with a nuclear bomb and the psychologist could not betray his professional secrecy by revealing his patient's plan can be considered the peer of low class citizens that barely managed to finish high school?

 

Minor detail but isn't a person a "who"? Is a psychologist that kills, a person? That may sound picky, but it is about our humanness or lack of it. Sort of the difference between killing the enemy, or someone's son, bother and father. When we say "a psychologist that kills", we have dehumanized the psychologist and objectified him.

 

I am not sure if discussing the psychologist derails the thread or not. I can see a connection between judging people and acting on our judgment of them and the question of this thread. Before I ask any more questions, I want to clarify, the questions are for the sake of thinking about what we think. They are about discussion, not right or wrong answers.

 

What is wrong with the psychologist protecting everyone by killing someone who has the power to decimate the city with a nuclear bomb? In the US we call these people who might harm us, dangerous terrorist and send out special forces to be sure they stop breathing. Isn't this the right thing to do?

 

What should the psychologist do? Why? Could this action lead to a problem?

 

No, making an assertion and not supporting it is against the rules here. You need to present your evidence or retract your assertion!

 

Hi I found the accusation against me. Hopefully in time to prevent being penalized for violating the rule of not supporting what I say.

 

Without evidence it's merely rumor-mongoring, or worse, libel.

That's not protected speech.

 

Now where is the quote that everyone says is my wrong? Is it my opening statement about how people can misjudge another and this is why having a defense is important?

 

Easy there folks. From what I get from the conversation is, that although something may have happened with a mod at sometime, the intent of the conversation is not directed at mods in particular. The use of mods as an example is to lay out a scenario of what the issue is that Athena wants to talk about. In no way does she have to prove that a mod did something wrong, but has already supported her side of the conversation by conveying the thought that people today do not understand the general philosophy of a democracy. I think it would be better to encompass the context as a whole instead of breaking down each and every comment that is made. I think the conversation is a little deeper than mod bashing, and has nothing to do with mods other than establishing a scenario. I think we can have a more fulfilling conversation if given a chance.

 

I think you are a very brave person.

 

And for sure the intended conversation is a whole lot deeper than mod bashing. What an insult to say I have nothing better to do than bash mods. That's is incredibly petty and so unworthy of my time and effort. My intentions are really concern about our democracy and liberty, and our future. How many people understand why we have public trials by jury? How do we protect our liberty? It really is about our humanness and how we protect each other from our faulted human nature.

Family is a concept that has helped us grow as a society, but it needs the freedom to adapt along with other concepts. I don't think gender distinctions have affected the family unit negatively as much as urban isolation. We used to band together in larger groups for mutual aid and socialization. Fear of modern predators has forced family units into smaller groupings and that seems very counter-intuitive to me. If we're afraid of gangs/terrorists/criminals/whatever, we should be uniting instead of isolating ourselves.

 

 

Just curious, don't want to go off-topic, but what's a "saw shop"? Is that like a male-dominated factory?

 

Yes, I live in Oregon and during the 1970 recession timber was about the only industry we had, and there were extremely few jobs for women. I went to a saw shop to ask the owner if he would train me to work on saws. To my delight he agreed. Then the male customers walked in and their language and manner, sent me running. Laugh, I was not ready for that.

 

I do not think we have banned together for physcial protection for a long a long time, but we do so for psychological reasons. Actually, in the US where people spread apart to live on isolated farms, was unheard of in Europe where people clustered together in small communities. Humans tend to need to belong groups that are small enough for everyone to know each other. For this reason, we break up into groups that are defined as membership in a church, or a social club or professional organization, or subgroups/ cultures such as people who wear tattoos, or people who can afford the best designer jeans, or the folks who hang out at the senior center and live in housing for people over 55, yeah, that is me. This is not different from other social animals who also form small groups and split apart when the group gets too large.

 

Religion is truly a human phenomena, because it united unnaturally large groups of people, and this evolved with the power of the state and than national identity. Has anyone read the book "The Lonely Crowd"? We are surrounded, sometimes by millions of people, and yet feel very alone. Our sense of loneliness can be intolerable, and drives us to find people we can identify with, and who recognize us as individuals, acknowledge us, (that acknowledgement can be, "this person really cares about democracy and has some serious concerns", as opposed to "she is attacking mods and isn't being honest about what this thread about") and hopefully the people we meet will value us, and care about us enough to really listen to what we are saying and avoid being hurtful, even after the person says things have become very hurtful. What we have to fear most is our human nature, and our best protection is people who really care about us. This is especially so when the state takes someone's children and makes them wards of the court. If the family does not have a strong supportive unit, it can be torn apart for life, by people with good intentions but no wisdom. I would not have my grandchildren and great grandchildren today, if I had not united with other grandparents, and successfully fought the state for my family and to change laws and policy. I think everyone is strongly under valuing the importance of family, but I must remain open to the possibility that change is good, and something like The Brave New World", is better than our primitive past?

 

Hum, I have to add- want is really important is people who care about us personal, or care about the principles we live by. Having good manners and being principled, goes a long ways in making it possible for strangers to safely interact without fear of being hurt.

1.The question itself is more a sociology question or a history question than an ethics question... Yet then you make an argument against pro-homosexuality which is indeed a subject ethics must address:

 

2.the words "because that was how we organize our civilization." fall into non sequitur or ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion or, irrelevant thesis because from the fact that we have organized our civilization in that way does not follow that we have to organize our civilization in that way... It also implies an argumentum ad antiquitatem that is a fallacy that because something is traditional it should be applied... With that flawed logic we would be still under monarchy.

 

3."Without such family order, how do we organize our civilization?" and that is an ad ignorantiam argument, you are impliying that because you do not know an alternate method of organization the only method of organization is heteronormative... It is also the fallacy of false choice or the fallacy of the excluded middle; It claims that either we are hetenormative or we have chaos, but that is wrong...

 

Mind you I am heterosexual but I found many flaws in heteronormativity with its assigned gender roles that sometimes seems to hold a position of "difference feminism" and at other times it holds a position of "difference machism" and overall complies to christian complementarianism

 

http://en.wikipedia....plementarianism

 

For instance it denies that fathers can be better parents than mothers in some ocassions... That men can love their children and be close to them (under the cultural bias that there is a deep maternal instinct and no male counterpart)... It denies that women can work as well as men and thus it expects women to work only as a way to meet men but to allow their husbands to be the breadwinners. It denies that men and women might not be monogamous but polyamorist or polyfidelous. It leads to such terrible sexism as the believe that a woman alone has the right to abort but the man still has to pay for the maintenance of the child after the child is born if the woman decided not to abort (instead of giving the decision to the couple, as it should be, because it is both their responsability and both are equally capable of working for the maintenance of the child). It leads to these ugly campaigns; http://en.wikipedia....ysAreStupid.jpg or http://en.wikipedia....Boys_Made_Of%3F which are sexist (feminist) versions of the Lilith, Eve and Adam mythos (that is the machist version, where Adam is made of fine clay, Lilith is made of filth and rotten matter and Eve is made of Adam's rib and both women are dertimental to Adam and his heirs)...

 

Edit: And the greeks achieved great success despite being mostly homosexuals.

 

I am overwhelmed, can we stop at social organization, because this is really what I want to talk about and if another forum is better for this, let's go there.

 

Some of your arguments seemed based on false assumptions, and I would like to address them separately. How about a thread asking is if males and females parent differently? Might this be a good or bad thing? If males and females parently differently, is this because of hormonal differences or is it just social pressure differences? I have no doubt that some women can abandon their children as easily as men, and it seems likely to me that women have committed infanticide more than men, while throughout history men have left children in the care of women more than women have left children in the care of men.

 

[/size]

I would just say these are personal thoughts and I present no evidence!

 

I suppose that in prehistoric times the structure of a family depended on two parents with different roles. The mother being the only one who could feed any babies would tend to stay in the cave and the father was needed to go out and do whatever was needed in the way of feeding and protecting. This would be how evolution made males, in general, larger and stronger than females. It could also be argued that it also accounts for males being more aggressive and females more sensitive. Some people say that the male in a household tends to sleep on the side of the bed nearest the door (as I have always done) and this is an unconscious remnant of the need to guard instinct. Without these developments perhaps the human race may not have been able to survive.

However, these days and for many years the conditions that forced this family arrangement do not exist. The products of organised society have seen changes that remove a need for the mother to stay at home or for the man to be physically strong enough to literally fight off competition for the right to mate or to collect or kill food.

Put it simply if society could have been a coherent thing from "day one" there would never have been a need for physical or emotional differences between the sexes.

Perhaps the physical differences that exist will gradually fade away with evolution like the legs of a whale have done. That we cannot control and may happen in it's own time.

But mental attitudes are not physical attributes that await aeons of time for evolution. We have the brain power to reason and accept the results of reasoning within our own lifetimes.

If the result of such reasoning is that there is no longer a need or place for male and female roles then I suppose we shall eventually come to accept that.

The result of this would be that civilisation will continue to develop as it always has but all roles in it's development will be done with equal contribution from both sexes.

 

 

 

I love zoology, and primates do not live in caves, yet the males are bigger and stronger than the females who have to carry the baby all day. Actually I think comparing human organizations with animal organizations could be very helpful to this thread. Especially comparing the chimps, with bonobos, and humans, could be interesting. Bonobos evidently have less to fear from animals that prey on their kind, than chimps, and among the bonobo, it is the females who ban together and defend each other and the babies from the males of their own kind. It seems we are moving towards the bonobo female dominated social structure and away from the male dominated male social structure that is more like chimps, now that labor, essential to providing the daily needs, does not require the brawn of the male?

 

Are we sure children do not need mothers and fathers and families that interact? Shouldn't we evaluate the research? Like really, are our child equal to pets, or does our human nature require more than what we give a dog?

 

What about the political changes as we move from family order, to being ordered by industry, and then ordered by the despotic government seems to be exactly what Tocqueville said Christian democracies would be, where people put very little value on the family. This is really a political discussion. I don't think our present despotic government is anything like the democracy the US started out to be, and I am not sure the change is a good thing. I asked some friends what is organizing us today and they agree it is power. Truly being organized by power instead of by families, is not the ideal of democracy.

 

 

Smile, have you read "The Brave New World"? In the Brave New World, babies are grown in test tubes, and then conditioned for the lives the planners determine the human will have. The character who makes the story happen is a young male from that taboo place where humans live in terrible poverty and without the drugs and controls that make "The Brave New World" as it is. Personally, I would not chose the drug and scientifically controlled "Brave New World".

If you're not attacking mods, why did you pull my quote, out of order and out of context, from way back on the first page just to accuse me of not discussing your topic? Honestly, I had stopped responding to the thread because you seemed so agitated by our explanations.

 

 

Sorry, I was going to address you and froze. The best way to handle this is to talk about what is happening in this thread, and compare it to the historical Star Chamber.

 

How do mods do things? What can we see in this thread? I see an assumption that this thread is really not about what I said it is about. It is about the importance of public trials and juries, but it keeps getting taken off topic, by people who insist I am attacking mods. I wanted to see evidence that everyone understands why we have public trials by jury, but what I am getting a personal history lesson on why public trials by jury are important and why people in the past were so defenseless.

 

I have said this is about the importance of trials in so many ways, but the discussion I want to have is prevented by those who come here looking for the proof that I am attacking mods. We used to defend our democracy and liberty in the classroom, and looking at this thread, I think anyone could judge, we can no longer discuss the importance of trial by jury and what this has to do with democracy. The couple of people who could answer the question, posted to the topic, rather then make an issue about me attacking mods. Those who evidently can not answer the question, are only concerned about me attacking mods and are keeping this thread off topic. Is that a false statement, based on my point of view, and feeling like a deer trying to dodge the hunters, or do others see this too?

 

Now let us consider the Star Chamber, and how is what is happening here different? Again and again, I am accused of attacking mods, and told to show my evidence, but there is no quote of me attacking mods, so I don't have a clue what they are talking about. I know myself and that my motive is trying to find evidence that I am wrong about what has gone wrong with our country, and I am dealing with people who believe they know my motive better than I do. Reminds me of a movie with guys in white wigs, drilling the accused and the accused having no defense. Some of the judges come in and ask for proof that I am not a witch, but they do not seem to know what set all this off, other than I was accused of attacking mods and not showing evidence. Because I can do not know what they are talking about, I can not show the requested evidence, I must be guilty as charged. I can not be telling the truth when I say why I started this thread, right?

 

Anyway now, I offer this thread as my evidence. What is ruling here is human nature unchecked by the process of trials. Only the accused can be banned for not showing evidence, and is being raked over the coals for making unfounded accusations, and the rule about not taking a subject off topic is not being ignored, because of the insistence on making me the subject and raking me over the coals, like a trial done by men in white wigs. This is almost certain to lead to enough evidence to justify banning me, because mods aren't coming here to discuss the subtopic. The questions are intended to find the desired proof of quilt, or am I just being paranoid, and this has never happened to anyone?

 

What does this have to do with democracy and our liberty? I wish it weren't so evident that you really don't know?

Yes, anotherfilthyage! " I could not defend myself because the mod did not want me to answer back his warning..". I thought I goofed when I said I could not present evidence because of the rules. Thank you for confirming I was not wrong. But my real reason for not showing evidence is I really don't know what I said that set off the belief I am attacking mods. Hey, and I really like your distinction between being a good scientist and a good engineer. This has everything to do with liberal education that includes science, and education for technology that is amoral and a threat to our democracy with liberty.

Wow, another thread is going very badly, and I was thinking of leaving the forums, and then you guys make wonderful post, the kind of post that keep pulling me back. I am really blown away by the changed attitude about gays. It seems just yesterday, rumors about someone being gay, cost a person a career. I remember sitting next to a man in a dining room who thought it good to tell us about, how men disappeared late at night, from the naval ship he was on, as though being involved with this was a good thing.

 

Personally, I have always been attracted to gay men, but I really do not like being around dikes, nor in a saw shop where the men are accustom to the freedom of male company without females. That is, a preference for refined people verses crude and aggressive people. But to each their own said the lady as she kissed the cow. I am okay with diversity, but I am not so sure about changing family.

 

I like the explanation that it takes time to accept some changes. And I didn't know boys might be put in dresses, but there is a picture of my grandfather with long ringlets and very much looking like a girl. Perhaps I should look for more information about the past, regarding this gender identity thing?

 

I also remember discussion on the internet, that it just isn't normal for men and women to live together. Because so many cultures have been organized around men and women getting married and having children, I forgot that some questioned how natural this is. I must say, I am beginning to question how "normal" this human behavior is, because it is appearing so normal for people to be homosexual and raise children. But I am not fully adjusted yet. I still have questions about how well the change will work?

 

My granddaughters lover seemed really uptight when she brought my grandgrandson to me, and without thinking, I said I think it is a mistake to not stay with traditional family values. Ah, this was an awkward moment, and trying to make things better by assuring her I am okay with homosexuality, but--- only extended the awkward moment. I do think it is a good thing that someone to be feminine and protected from stress, and is made free to be focus on being a mother and caring for the family, because I think this is good for the children and society. The person who cares for the children, shouldn't be uptight and stressed and coming down hard on the child's every move. I wanted her to relax and ease up on the kid, or go get a job and allow my granddaughter to stay home and do the mothering. Like who is going to be the mother, and is this important? Understand, I thought being a mother was the most important thing a woman could do. I wanted a career too, but always put family first. I live with notions of family duty, and I don't know how well things can work without a sense of importance and duty? I am reacting to all these questions by making flower arrangements with balloons that say Happy Mother's Day for the apartment lobby, and taking all the females in my daughter's family out for a Mother's Day breakfast. I never celebrated Mother's Day before, but now it is seeming very important to acknowledge mothers, even if they like looking like men. And I thought when my son married a woman with 4 children, things were confusing.

You are putting people on the defensive by accusing them of violations.

You are attacking the mods.

You are making personal attacks.

You are being encouraged to present evidence.

 

You challenge someone's integrity then are shocked, shocked, when they respond.

 

You have brought all of this on yourself. If you don't wish to have the higher level discussions that you really enjoy derailed by talk of people's behavior in this thread, then don't bring it up in this thread!

 

If you stay on topic, we'll stay on topic.

If you feel you have been wronged, then I encourage you to pursue it.

If you don't wish to follow the procedures the mods have outlined to help you resolve your concerns, then don't. But bringing this up in the manner you have chosen does not seem to be working out very well, either in terms of high level discussions or resolving your concerns with the mods. You may want to try something else.

 

Okay please direct me to my attacks on mods, other than mentioning the pm that was very offensive. Unfortunately, I must have deleted it myself. I forgot I deleting it, so I would feel compelled to respond to it.

 

This seems highly unrealistic to me, no offense intended. Using "how mods do things" is in no way a fair representation of any democratic political system, and expecting people to relate what is happening today by calling attention to such unrelated events is not grounded in reality. Private forums are N-O-T democracies and our rules have little bearing on laws and constitutional rights.

 

I can see the majority of people here are not here to discuss the topic, and I am so done with this thread.

 

No, making an assertion and not supporting it is against the rules here. You need to present your evidence or retract your assertion!

 

Okay, let us have a trail. Let us make me the subject of this thread.

 

I assert that mods are human beings. I assert that as normal human beings, they have a point of view. I asset that humans can make mistakes. I assert that members of groups tend to protect US against Them, because this is how group dynamics work. I assert that this thread has seen far more activity than my other threads, not because people are interested in the subject, but they think they personally have something at stake here. And I assert there are reasons for having public trials.

 

How about this, mods enforce the rules by suspending or banning people, and this happens without a good defense.

 

Did I miss any of my accusations and assertions? No is there something about my understanding of humans that needs proving? As for what mods do to enforce the rules, I believe that is listing in the rules.

 

Which rules?

 

 

Moderators can neither see nor delete your private messages, unless you intentionally send the messages to them.

 

Aren't we suppose to pm staff or mods when we have a concern, instead of posting it in a forum? Maybe it is just other forums that have that rule.

Would you say Obama has won more voters than he lost, by being in favor of homosexual marriages?

 

This is coming from the thread about what effects our judgment, and a comment about family values being destroyed by industrialization, economic collapse and war. Working parents have to put their jobs before their children, or they loose their jobs. I grew up in a day care center, and for me, this was like being an orphan. My parents had divorced and we didn't have a family life as family was pictured in text books and demonstrated on TV. We are moving further and further away from family values and TV shows that demonstrate good family values. Yesterday my granddaughter asked me to take her shopping for a dress for her 4 year old son. She is living with another female who doesn't know if she is male or female, and my granddaughter does not make much definition between being male of female, and she is teaching her son not to make those definitions either. Like family seems to be on the way out, as well as the traditional role models, or at least changing.

 

Democracy depended on strong families, with defined male and female roles, because that was how we organize our civilization. Without such family order, how do we organize our civilization?

No it is not universal. And I would be surprised that you were required to report an arrest that did not lead to charge, or an arrest/charging that did not result in a conviction (perhaps apart from the time between arrest and trial). I am not an employment lawyer - and I did not train on US law; but I believe in EU that discriminating against applicants for these sorts of reasons might lead to a claim. Do you have Citizen's Advice Bureau in the the USA - they are superb at this sort of thing?

 

This is a real problem in criminal justice - too many young and poor defendants are persuaded to make a plea when the evidence is lacking.

 

No - the police must treat everyone as an innocent civilian until they have reasonable suspicion that they are not.

 

There are some great papers that talk about the privatisation of previously public spaces - that allows the new private owner to enact very strict rules. There is a whole sector of the community that relies on public spaces - and by making these subject to a different set of rules these people can be excluded. Let me know if you are interested and I will dig them out from my files.

 

Wow, I love it if we could sue for that kind of discrimination! On being a good citizen, I know injustice is happening, and I have not a clue as to where to turn. A good citizen should make the effort to get precise information, and then present it to the media and make the effort to mobilize political action to right wrongs. But my god, that takes so much effort, and doing something like that while all alone, is, well, painful and I hate to take on these challenges all alone. I wish I had a good man in my life, who would partner with me on taking these challenges.

 

I know a guy who is slightly retarded and not physically attractive, and he is treated badly by everyone. Attorneys take advantage of him and do not get him justice. Like my experience with attorneys has been so bad, I couldn't serve on a jury. Nuts, huh, I am arguing in favor of public trials by jury, and at the same time see our system as so corrupt, I couldn't be a part of it. I wrote the board of how bad my friend's defense attorney was, and got no satisfaction, than some years later this jerk of an attorney is standing in line at a fast food place, telling his friend who he is an attorney for the money only, and hopes to retire early. We can not have justice when attorneys and judges do not care about justice, but are going through the motions for the money. I am blaming education for technology, with a focus on being technological correct, instead of morally correct for this deterioration of all our institutions.

 

Reasonable suspicion in my granddaughters case was discrimination against Occupy people. People who are not discriminated against, do not become aware of the problem, and are blindly supportive of the police force. Without knowledge of our history and a better understanding of human nature (liberal education), we are being so unrealistic. We expect everyone to do the "right thing", instead of what is natural for humans. We need a forum for zoology, to discuss our human nature. Hum, I think the superstition of religion and talk of us being born in sin, has kind of messed up how we think of such things. The groups we identify with, and the groups we identify as not one of "us" but one of "those people" most certainly effects our judgment. Another way to understand this that we might easily relate to, is labeling someone as a troll. Oh, I am reminded of a paper I saw in a VA office, that listed the negative word used for "those people" and the positive opposite of each word that is used to describe "us". If someone is one of "those people" then there is reasonable suspicion of all the negativity.

 

Oh my goodness, Occupy in Eugene is really about the public domain fight. This was the first issue that a professor presented and he used our constitution to make the point. We are loosing public land and privatizing everything, and policing every inch of the land. Perhaps this is necessary because of the mass of humanity, but I sure don't like the change. And now that you brought it up, I remember I have to call the attorney and question her about the privation of the public fair grounds. There was a law that said if the public used a path through property for something like 7 years, it became public property. Our fair grounds went from public property with open gates to private property and closed gates. If Occupy wants to fight for public domain, perhaps this should be a legal fight instead of street confrontations? However, our down town's history is dark and ugly, with a few property owners stealing public domain and controlling who owns and uses private down town property, as though only they have the right to the down town area. Yes, more information might be nice.

 

I once had it explained to me, and I believe it to be true, that, quite often, in treaties and agreements between countries vagueness is often built in to allow the two parties to interpret the agreement in their own way and so express surprise at the other party's later interpretation! The two interpretations can then form the basis of further negotiations later. The idea being that this "accidental let out" was better than no treaty or agreement at all.

 

Oh my goodness, you have opened a whole new can of worms! This is what lead to the civil war in the US. It was agreed to not discuss slavery for something like 7 years, in favor of uniting everyone with a constitution. The north was settled by colonist who chose to live outside of the king's domain, for philosophical/ political reasons, and the south was settled by aristocrats, and what a be aristocrats who could become large land owners until the land was all bought up. The north used the bible to oppose slavery and the south used the bible to defend slavery. Same religion, different philosophy. The north tried to resolve this difference with public education, but the south caught on to what was happening, and began printing its own text books, bringing the conflict from an intellectual realm to a physical one. This also pitted sovereign state interest against the interest of a strong federal government, and perhaps this whole subject of resolving conflicting interest should have its own thread? It is a hot issue.

Easy there folks. From what I get from the conversation is, that although something may have happened with a mod at sometime, the intent of the conversation is not directed at mods in particular. The use of mods as an example is to lay out a scenario of what the issue is that Athena wants to talk about. In no way does she have to prove that a mod did something wrong, but has already supported her side of the conversation by conveying the thought that people today do not understand the general philosophy of a democracy. I think it would be better to encompass the context as a whole instead of breaking down each and every comment that is made. I think the conversation is a little deeper than mod bashing, and has nothing to do with mods other than establishing a scenario. I think we can have a more fulfilling conversation if given a chance.

 

Thank you, but I think this thread has been much ruined don't you? At least it is ruined for me. I dread checking it, because I don't like being put in the defensive as is happening here. This is not the critical thinking I am looking for. The thread about what effects our judgment has gone much better? I forgot I started that thread, and started this one. It is curious to me how this one has gotten so much more attention compare to the other one. Maybe people think this one directly involves them and the other one does not?

 

The mods who are attacking me for not presenting "evidence" have a valid point, and discussing it might be helpful to the subject. I can not present the evidence that triggered my concern about our liberty and the direction western civilization is going, without violating the rules. So now what? The mods can not be challenged so there is no chance of changing of their judgment, and no defense of the accused. I did not introduce the Star Chamber, but did think it was ideal for addressing the core issue. And I think another important questions are, how do we defend our liberty? If there are no answers to these questions, there is no point in continuing this thread. I really do not want to read through all the defensiveness and personal attacks, while being prevented from showing the evidence that is necessary to defending myself on this personal level. What is happening here is crazy, and painful to me, and it is not the higher level discussion that I really enjoy. If anyone wants me to read his/her post, it is a good idea to avoid beginning it defensively and attacking me. I seriously want to avoid the pain.

 

Let me split my comments into two distinct parts.

 

On moderators, if you have a complaint please provide some evidence, I'm aware you've been asked to in pm's, we do try and deal with issues users may have but I cannot help you if I don't know what you're talking about. The general process here is that a user will not be suspended or banned without first being warned to change their behaviour and pointed out what has gone on. As a staff team we do not act unilaterally for something serious like removing a users access we reach a consensus and act upon that. I cannot comment on other forums, they are private enterprises and are free to operate as they see fit. We try and be fair but are also mindful that we cannot let a single user downgrade the site for all of the others.

 

Now on rights and trial by jury. I've a few comments to make on this. My first comment is that it'd be nice if people put in their posts where they are from. Athena, I assume you are in the US, it is always worth bearing in mind that the internet is global. So I'm from the UK, as a British citizen I'm under no false pretences that I have any natural or god given rights. That isn't to say that I do not feel that people (all people) deserve certain rights, but they are a result of society and because if they have those rights then I also have them and that makes a better world for everyone. I feel some historic context and explanation of why I feel this way. Here we have no bill of rights as many other countries have but we can trace our rights back to different laws made at different times for different reasons. Take education, every child in the UK has a right to an education, this stems from the victorians and a need for a more literate numerate workforce, that was the driving force behind education rights. I'm afraid I cannot provide a good reference for that, but saw a very interesting TV show on some of the big poor schools in victorian times.

 

Now let us consider more broad rights and those more discussed above, say the right to a trial by jury, in the UK we point to the magna carta for such things (the last case was in 2008 with an attempt to introduce longer time incarcerated without charge for certain crimes). The magna carta was actually formed to restrict someone who claimed he had god given rights so therefore the basis of our rights in the UK is to counter the perceived god given/natural rights. Now, you'll say well in the US we have a bill of rights and that is just rights we see as natural, which is an interesting argument I guess but let us see what the US supreme court says on the matter, I cannot find the rullings themselves but there are many references that state similar things to this link http://www.magnachar...d-american-law/ that the bill of rights stems directly from the magna carta... Rights are man made for the purposes for furthering humans. They are arbitrarily set and your upbringing will determine how you feel about them.

 

Thankful splitting and making an argument that is worthy of the subject. Going on Greek philosophy, and my understanding of Athena, Athens patron goddess of liberty, justice and the defense of those who stand for liberty and justice, even the gods are subject to reason. Rights are not man made. Rights come with the laws of nature, not the laws of man. When man correctly understands the laws of nature, and lives by them, all goes well. When he does not, things go badly. That is what democracy is all about, coming to an understanding of the laws, which we put in words to live by (logos). Mind you, if we get this wrong, no matter how good our intentions, or how much we pray, burn candles, sacrifice animals, things will not go right. Man is not the ultimate authority. Wise men are humble, because they are not so sure they know it all.

 

I couldn't disagree more. It is grossly unfair to say someone in a small group of people on this site has done something wrong, then refuse to explain it or retract it. It is also disingenuous to say someone reading this has done her an injustice but that they shouldn't take it personally, and please just move along. Athena has suggested the mods lack objectivity and are politically motivated, and have accused her of awful things, but refuses to explain herself. If this is her behavior on other sites I am not surprised she has found herself criticized

 

The bulk of the OP discusses the mods. If Athena wants people to concentrate on 'the general philosophy of a democracy', then she should not include inflammatory statements. She herself seems to epitomize the worst of the Star Chamber.

 

Is it possible for mods to delete private messages? One of you should pm, zapatos and confirm those accusations were made in a moment of emotional distress, and later, when better judgment was resumed, you decided to take back those words. I can not forward a pm as evidence, when the evidence was destroyed, and I can not post it if I had it, because that is a violation of the rules. Check the rules and stop demanding I violate them.

One of the important things about trials is that they use evidence rather than innuendo. Since you seem hell-bent on doing this here rather than through official channels (e.g. reporting posts or PMs to staff), I would like to see your evidence. Has anyone actually threatened you with being banned? Provide links. Have you received warnings that did not explain what rule you were violating? Provide links.

 

Do you really want to me to present evidence here? That is against the rules, and it would ruin the intent of the thread, which is a much bigger picture. I use how mods do things, to call attention to greater issue and political cause, so people relate what is happening today, to the over all picture that is REALLY IMPORTANT. Try to see the picture, okay?

OMG, what are they teaching kids in school these days?

 

public = not performed secretly; allows public knowledge/record of proceedings and people involved (accused, witnesses, jury, judge, prosecutor, etc).

trial = opportunity to hear charges, listen to testimony, question witnesses and see evidence and to answer with testimony, witnesses and evidence.

jury = guilt or innocence depends on the decision of a small group instead of on the less dependable decision of one person.

peers = guilt or innocence is decided by those who live similar lives as the accused, so best know how the defendant should have felt, thought and acted.

 

Consider England's infamous Star Chamber:

 

source

 

Furthermore, until the separation of powers (into executive, legislative and judicial branches), the king/queen was lawmaker, police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all wrapped up into one person. Tongue in cheek, of course:

 

 

 

Thank you. I have heard something about the US returning to something like what you described through a homeland security act. I have concern that when we do not know history, we can repeat it. It is especially the history of Germany that concerns me, because we have adopted German institutions, and I am not sure how far this thinking will take us that direction, especially if we do not know history and the reasoning for things like public trials and peers judging and professional defense.

 

I hate to bring in my private life, but because my grandchildren were made wards of the state, I learned more about tyranny than I ever knew there was to know. I know children can be taken against the law, and the family can do nothing about this, because we react differently to the possibility that someone threatens a child, than we do to criminal charges. When a child might be threatened, nothing has to be proven. I know a father who was prevented from seeing his children for several years, because the mother accused him of molesting his daughters. It turned out, it was her boy friend who was molesting the girls, not the father, and when this was realized, the girls were given to the father. How awful. Especially grandparents had it bad, before we united and got laws and policy changed. And the practice of keeping records on people and judging them by what is a file, is very threatening! Those files are written to make the person writing them look good, and from there everyone judges the parent by what is in the file, and there is no defense. The children's defense attorney is a sick joke! They don't even make an effort to speak with grandparents. They simply process the cases.

 

We should not take our justice system for granted, because we do make exceptions. It is the reasoning for the exceptions that scares me. How many people know the reasoning for public trials by jury and care enough to fight for our legal protection? Or can we wake some day and have a more "efficient" justice system? Hum, right now there is an agreement that attorneys can get the accused to plead guilty to a lesser charge. People agree to this, because the greater charge could mean a prison sentence, and especially with careless attorneys, it is a far greater risk to go to trial on the greater charge. However, the lesser charge can mean, not getting jobs and housing, because we are judging people by what is in a file, and marginalizing them. We are creating a very cruel reality and we are not discussing this.

 

Athena,

 

Sometimes this is where I get into it with others who have different thoughts on what rights are and where they come. Historically in the US our rights were defined as God given. The difference between the two is that a human right is only given by those which hold the power to give them (or take them away). A God given right (or natural right) are rights that every being is born with. Here is an example of what I mean by the difference: http://en.wikipedia....od_given_rights .

 

 

We are still in this argument to this very day. "Who gets the authority, and how much. What is our freedom and whether we should give it up and why." These are some of the most argued political philosophies of our times, and I think will continue to be so for the rest of our existance. Some have implied recently that freedom is a mystical thing and that it is acceptable to give it up a little at a time in place of comfort or security, and that it's the public's vigilance that keeps authority from erring. Historically, this has not worked. If the vigilance of the masses was effective in this way, then we would have never had reason to fight in those world wars. So while we give authority to some, I think our founder's vigilance was more focused on keeping the authority's power limited so that the errors of that authority are inturn limited.

 

 

I think ewmon answered this quite well in the above post, where it was said that a group of people can come to a far better conclusion than one person could. And that a group of people that live similar lives can pass judgement far better than someone who only enjoys the finer things in life. This is the reason that I think a trial by jury is ethically the best course for justice that we are bound to get at this point in time.

I also think that some people take the power of a democracy for granted. I have felt that some think that a democracy is a full proof way to avoid tyranny, all the while steering that same democracy in a direction that invites tyranny and abuse of power. Sorry for being a little off topic, my mind leads me in multiple directions.

 

 

 

I think that wanting these types of forums to be publicly democratic is right in one way, but I think it is also wrong in another since they are privately owned. Let's take your house for example. Not just anyone is free to come and go, and say anything that they want to in your house, are they? Why heck no. That's your house and what you say goes. It's your private property, where you let in who you want to let in, and kick some out if they disrespect you. These forums are the same in that regard. Although this is one that I think pretty fair in it's guidelines, it's as privately owned as you owning your house, so doesn't fall into the rules of democracy that have to be adhered to by government.

 

I'm also fairly certain that any bannishment is talked over and discussed with several different members of moderators before a decision is reached, so in that regard, is fairly democratic. Now in regards to defense of ones actions.... I can't claim to know if one gets a chance to defend against bannishment, but I would hope that would be the case, if only for the sake of fairness.

 

Oh, oh, THANK YOU! I tried to do a thread about god and liberty and all I got was arguments that there is no god. Our liberty was protected by liberal education, and we stopped doing that in 1958. Cicero's understanding of God, is the God of which Jefferson wrote, when he said "the Laws of nature and Nature's God". Understanding this philosophical concept of God and morals is essential our liberty, and the reasoning of democracy.

 

There are two questions essential to our democracy- "how do the gods resolve their differences", and "to whom does God give his authority"? The answers, vital to democracy are, the gods argued until there was a consensus on the best reasoning, and God, gives his authority to everyone. THANK YOU, for explaining the danger of ignorance of the philosophy, is the loss of liberty.

 

However, Tocqueville argued the founders of the US didn't go anywhere near far enough in protecting in our liberty. His prediction of the new despotic government over the people, in 1830, and was very accurate! We did not go enough in protecting our liberty, but starting around 1840, we did rely on mass education, so everyone would understand the reasoning our institutions, and then in 1958, we replaced our liberal education with German's model of education for technology. Of course the change in change in education, has changed our reasoning and think their is reason to be afraid. Now we have a mass that understands the organization of atoms and molecules better than humans and human organizations. This is exactly what manifest the horrors Tocqueville feared was the future of Christian democracies.

In Athens, jurist were paid for exactly the reason you explained. So everyone, including the poor could serve, and with the belief that this better serves justice. It was politically very important to the balance of power.

 

May I argue your reasoning for forums not being more democratic with a question? How do we defend our liberty? I am thinking, either we live by principles or we do not. If our number one principle is, "this my cave and I am going to defend it", how far from the animals are we? Democracy and liberty are possible, only because we are different from the animals. This is why I question our knowledge of the principles and ask how do we defend our liberty? Without the necessary concepts, what makes different from pack animals?

 

May I ask what makes a group of mods better than England's infamous Star Chamber? Someone has been accusing me of very awful things, and even suggesting I am guilty of criminal charges. I suspect this person's thoughts of my wrongs, began with someone saying I was doing wrong things. It has been my experience, that when a mod becomes annoyed with someone, in a short time another mod finds that this person is violating rules. It appears that the group effort is to protect the group, regardless of what group, children service people, the police, or mods, and this over rides the protection of individuals. This is human nature, is it not? I am also thinking of the explanations I have heard about the need to protect police, instead of the citizen, since my granddaughter was arrested. Have we lost touch with our human nature? Have we become smart at the expense of wisdom, as one might say was the German problem when the Prussians took over? This is a deeply heart felt question. All around me I am hearing arguments for being efficient and needing policing, that trigger my fear that adopting German institutions and philosophy, is taking us down the wrong path. Our human nature is the greatest threat to our liberty and justice. Christianity without education for democracy is not the same as the reasoning that began our the US. We were not a theocracy, but a philosophically guided social organization. Christians and atheist without education for democracy is a disaster waiting to happen.

Athena,

 

I too enjoy thoughtful discussion. In fact, I believe, it has made me who I am today. Though I'm FARRRR from perfect, I can remember the exact moment that a thoughtful discussion put my life on a path towards making something more of myself. I can truthfully say that without that discussion, at that time in my life, I would have ended up without the thirst for knowledge and understanding that I have today. I should take that further to say, that I would have been among the dreggs of society, as I see them today. I find it amazing how 1 simple conversation can influence a person's entire way of thinking in a way that changes them for the better.

 

 

 

Truthfully I think it is because of the times, rather than historically. In the time of Jesus, if someone did you wrong, the following confrontation would have been more personal. This is why He said, "bring someone with you to confront this person." The 3rd person is the one who will see the problem logically. This is one reason I say blind/impersonal justice. Someone to look at the problem that has nothing to gain by the outcome of the argument. Too many times have we seen someone judged based upon their stature within society, rather than their actions as an equal citizen. Therefore, to my way of thinking, justice should be blind.

 

 

Some of the simplest of questions are among the hardest to answer.

I can see where society is becoming too impersonal, in that a person's character cannot be displayed on a sheet of paper, one misdeed should not define a person's life, and a signature should not outweigh a handshake. These are just some examples of where I think society has lost it's feel for personhood. I think this is a reason that I reclude myself to smaller communities. Almost every interaction made is more of a personal one and I think the community and the people in that community are stronger because of it.

 

But I don't think that there is any one right answer to what kind of society we want. The bigger a society becomes the less personal it seems to be. The time it would take to personalize every decision made would far exceed one's life span. So we can only do what we can and hope that the human condition still reflects our decision making.

 

 

 

Never you fear. We've got a saying down here that you may have already heard, but I feel it bears repeating. "It'll all come out in the wash" After it's all said and done with, things usually aren't as bad as they seem at first. Although any criminal offense looks bad on a report, this risisting arrest is only a misdemeanor that will probably be overlooked by most employers. And if the employer is the type that doesn't take the personal aspect of a situation into account, then she probably doesn't want to work for the weasley S.O.B. anyway.

 

This is mind blowing! Both of you have given such awesome replies. Not all my threads have gone so well. A thread can only be as good as those who post in it. I have wondered if I should even be trying to discuss what concerns me in a science forum, but Justin, what you said about how your life was changed, gives me hope that if I don't give up, something good might happen. Only for me I what to change the direction of a whole society. Thankfully I am not alone, but our numbers are still really small. But then the numbers of those wanting change when Britain tried to rule the colonies was also small, and diverse, and they were united and mobilized.

 

I love your explanation of why justice should be blind. What a prefect example of one truth being opposites. I don't know how to say this? It is really confusing when truth is complex instead of simple. As you explain why justice should be blind, it is absolutely right. On the other hand if blind justice is not also compassionate, then once again it is tyranny and not justice. Like an all white jury judging a young Black man, may not lead to the same justice as he would receive if the jury were Black and from his own neighborhood. I think we need to be able to identify with the person being judged, and have some personal understanding of this person's life? This is the opposite of being blind.

 

I love your phrasing- a loss of personhood. Laugh, our huge corporations have personhood and individuals do not. Now that is a thought to chew one. I have been reading about this shift away from individual liberty and power. This has been processing at least since the beginning of the industrial revolution. My mother, as all workers, was forced to put her job first. She supported two children who were left in a day care over 8 hours a day, feed and put to bed, in less than 2 hours. That is to question, what family life? This was not a "Leave It To Beaver" family. All those families in the text books and on TV were not like my life, and if I had a problem at school, it was school authority that over ruled a concerned mother. We are blaming homosexuals for destroying family values, but from my point of view, family values have been damaged by industrialization, wars, and then our institutions, which increasingly crush individual liberty and power? And in writing this, I can see a child silently raging and an adult who is maladjusted. Is this only personal and of no matter, or might there be social implications?

The jury trial is normally considered to have it's foundations in pagan society - the Greeks and the Romans both used this system and many years later the Scandinavians/Vikings also had a form of judgment by the community at large or a small group of one's peers.

 

The best way to be sure that you, the juror, is in receipt of someone's honest thoughts and testimony is to watch him or her deliver it. Sure, we can still be fooled - but it is easier to lie in writing, or even on tape than it is to tell untruths or half-truths live in court. Some people do have the knack of hoodwinking juries (other than lawyers) - but most people do not.

 

 

Public order offences can be very poorly used by the police - especially in political situations. I have been arrested a few times in similar circumstance - but yet to (and hopefully never will) face trial. I hope your g-daughter comes out of it ok

 

Policemen should be allowedd to have bad days like the rest of us - but there must be safeguards to stop injustice due to a situation of abnormal stress on a police office. From a legal point of view - as long as the reasons that allow a police officer to make an arrest are constrained and well understood; then there must be protection for the officer making that arrest - therefore the offence of resisting arrest. However, far to many systems give the police officer far too much scope for making the arrest in the first place.

 

Firstly it might never come to trial and charges might be dropped, secondly trials do have two outcomes, and finally I would hope the jurisdiction your gdaughter is in will have a system in which criminal records are only released to those with a legitimate right to view them, and that they are time-limited (especially if your Gdaughter is still young) ie expunged after a certain amount of time

 

Even though I do have many run-ins with the police over political activities - and the UK is becoming increasingly authoritarian (worse in some ways than the states, better in others); I do still want to live in a state that has the rule of law. Arbitrary justice is a terrible thing - and the law is the best restraint on the exercise of power by those in control

 

Whoo, whoo, back up- you questioned the rules of our jurisdiction. Is not universal that any property manager or employer can look at a person's criminal and credit records? We have to report arrest even if they were dropped and explained what happened. It was explained to me by a state employer that failure to do so will automatically result in not being hired, because it would be assumed it was our intention to hide the record. Like maybe I should move? Where I live, it is as though we lost the second world war. And it seems only a few years ago, when an exchange student said how wonderful it is here because we do not marginalize people. Then, I remember questions about our criminal record showing up on job applications and talk of how, by law, we do not have to answer them, and it seems over night, this police state policy totally consumed us, and both employers and property owners rely on these records and we are marginalizing people.

 

Then you add to this, attorneys who do nothing more than argue for a reduced change, and all the people who agree to this, because the original charge could mean a prison sentence. Government is fine with this lack of justice because it is cost effective. I swear I have experienced this through other people's misfortunes, and questioned authority. If things are better somewhere else, where?

 

And arbitrary justice, I have ponder this. Of course if a police officer is dealing with a thug and it is a criminal situation, the police officer needs protection, but mothers and children playing in a park? I heard the officer ticketed them for allowing the children to play among the bushes. This was without question targeted, because it would never happen to a family stopping at the little park, while out shopping. I don't want to get personal in what needs to be an open public discussion, but shouldn't there be some discrimination between normal citizens and criminals? Like it isn't just the police who can exercise arbitrary justice, but the public bus service hired a security service that also does security in a war zone, and it is not citizen friendly! A security officer can ban someone from using the bus, for any reason he can think of. All this goes with our exclusion zone that prevents people who have been charged by any authority, from entering the down town area. Words can not describe how this makes me feel. I remember this area as a beautiful and friendly mall with fountains and parks and people playing checkers, and now it is an exclusion zone for people who can afford the privately owned Athletic Club. I wish I had taken pictures of the mall when it was a wonderful place to be. I wish I had no memory of German, which I have gotten from books and pictures.

Since you declared the correction of your (apparent) spelling error to be not on topic, I can only assume you actually meant to discuss public trails.

On the topic of public trails by jury, I believe that local planning commissions are probably more appropriate in determining the routes and obtaining the necessary land grants for the establishment of public trails. That said, the greenbelt space dedicated to these public trails can increase property values since that area (presumably) won't be developed and offers a view of some kind. That may not always be true though.

 

And contrary to your statements in the OP, the point of a public trail is mostly just to have a nice place to go walk or bike.

 

Thank you. That was the most intellect reply I have read so far. I am so thankful for our lovely paths along a river bank, and think such paths are essential to having a healthy community. Perhaps this is worthy of scientific study? I believe there are things we can do to reduce crime and other social problems, such as community gardens and nature paths. I think such projects are well worth the expense, but because we are talking money here, we need more than an opinion. Acting on what makes a community better is ethical, right?

 

Good manners and protecting each others dignity is another way to improve our communities. Publicly shaming people, might lead to social problems? In another forum an older man speaks of working with German engineers shortly after the second world war, and how focused they were on perfection. He said it was delightful working with them, but he would not want his congressman to be like this. Our culture has changed and some of this good and some of this is not so good. I think we have become more concerned about technological correctness, than we are concerned about each other? The extreme of this leads to truck loads of naked dead bodies, but now this getting too far off topic.

 

What is the best way to handle the misfortune of the incorrect word being used in title? Could we perhaps delete the whole thread, considering nothing could be on topic? Or should people just graciously assume the word should be trials and not trails, and address the subject of why we have trials by jury? And perhaps if a person does not want to address the subject, the person might stay with being technologically correct and stay out of the thread, because really the quality of these discussions depends on the quality of the post, right?

 

 

I was hoping for a more clear question.

 

You said, "Were rulers in the past bad guys, or are there good reasons for having public trails with a jury of peers?". So either the first part is true or the second part is true.

So if I say yes to the first part, that rulers in the past were bad guys, then that means no to the second part, as in there are no good reasons for having public trials with a jury of peers.

 

How does it make sense to say 'rulers in the past were bad guys so there is no good reason for public trials with a jury of peers'?

 

Or why not, 'rulers were good guys, and it also makes sense to have public trials with a jury of peers'?

 

If you want me to put thought into the answer then you should put some thought into the question.

 

Yes, a thoughtful reply. Now I have to do some thinking, and that is why I come to the forums. Thank you.

 

You said, "How does it make sense to say 'rulers in the past were bad guys so there is no good reason for public trials with a jury of peers'?" I was in a rush when I posted, and I should never, ever do that, but it was such a short post, how could I screw that up? God, it is embarrassing when I screw up so badly in public. I am a terrible proof reader of my own writing, because I read what I think said, instead of what did say. The word "trail" should have been "trial", and the word "so" in the sentence should have been "or". I didn't get the mistake, until your more respectful reply demanded a thinking response., instead of flip reaction.

 

My understanding of our history is, the big issues were about a philosophical concept of human rights, and legal matters. We wanted policing but we also wanted to protect the individual from the errors of authority. We made laws to effect the protection of individuals. Like it wasn't okay for the king's men to take someone to England for a trial where the individual may not have a good, and just defense. We associated words like "tyranny" with the old order of authority. This is associated with arguments about legitimate authority. Laugh, now I feeling guilty as hell. This is the discussion I wanted to have, and it has everything to do why I am on the internet, but I feel like I have done something wrong, by controlling for what I want to discuss in a science forum. On the other hand, such discussions required educated and caring people, capable of such discussions, and that is hard to find. You guys are better than most, so even though I get totally frustrated here, I keep coming back, because you are better than what I find else where.

 

To be as condense as I can be, it is all about these notions of human rights and legitimate authority, and my terrible fear that we have not educated for this understanding, so we are no longer the democracy we defended in two world wars. I totally understand why forums are ruled they way they ruled, and I am okay with that, but does anyone understand the principles of democracy and such things as why we have trials by jury? Arguing these forums are not democracies, intensifies my fear that we are loosing the democracy for which our forefathers, and those who defended it in world wars, risked everything, including their lives. I am obsessed with a fear that we fought those for nothing. That all those people died for nothing. This is a years long search on the internet, for people who understand the principles of democracy. Does that makes sense? I am looking for evidence that I don't need to worry about our future and the direction our nation appears to be going, because really everyone does understand the principles of democracy, and will stand up for them, instead of argue against democracy and against doing things in a way that complies with the principles of democracy. Like if everyone argues against doing things in way that complies with the principles of democracy, who is going to defend our democracy?

 

One of the important things about trials is that they use evidence rather than innuendo. Since you seem hell-bent on doing this here rather than through official channels (e.g. reporting posts or PMs to staff), I would like to see your evidence. Has anyone actually threatened you with being banned? Provide links. Have you received warnings that did not explain what rule you were violating? Provide links.

 

As you said this is not the place for personal accusations and defenses. I am learning that what really matters to me can not be discussed in forums, because all moderators, in every forum, over many years, become defensive. I have been repeatedly assured I will not be banned and your assumption about what this thread is about is wrong.

 

I know every poster in this forum is proud of being non emotional and logical, but really, are you all sure emotions are not influencing what you think? Is giving someone a bad score without explaining why, a critical (meaning a matter of reasoning) reaction or an emotional one? Is hitting someone with no explanation something helpful?

I have no idea how this is an either/or question.

 

I was hoping for more thoughtful replies. Would you want to return to the past of trials without attorneys, and being judged by a king, or professional judges, or do you think there are good reasons for having a prosecutor and defense attorney and a jury of peers?

 

I think the moderation rules we have currently are enough. I would be loathe to add some sort of public trial for any offenses. I've seen heavy-handedness at other forums and I'm convinced it stifles discussion. For every person like you who wants a spotlight placed on their alleged transgressions, there are probably twenty people who would rather move on to more interesting things.

 

Athena, many replies to your posts are like zapatos' above. You seem to have so much to say to us that it all comes bubbling up at once and many of your sentences have little relationship to each other. You jump from passionate rants to out-of-context anecdotes to defense of concepts that few understand. You have a great deal of potential but I think you need to think more about editing yourself (not censoring yourself, but editing for clarity and focus). I don't mean to offend, but looking back over some of your content, there are a lot of people who are telling you they don't know what you're talking about. You can do better; you're intelligent and passionate, and that has a lot of potential for interesting discussions.

 

Well, almost on topic. If you had stayed with the topic, this might even have been an acceptable post.

First, you're premise is flawed, this is not a democracy, it's a privately owned internet forum. Second, you're basically asking to be treated under a different set of rules than everyone else. Third, I'm not sure why you're suddenly going off on the mods here (in multiple threads, I might add). Has something happened to you recently that I haven't read, something you want a public trial for?

 

Not on topic

 

OT: Trail/trial is a good example of why people shouldn't rely on spell checkers. It's an example of why today's kids should learn to spell without a spell checker and how to do math without a calculator.

 

not on topic

I live for thoughtful discussions, and you have made this possible, by giving a thoughtful reply. I also often want to be proven wrong. Really when one thinks we are going to hell in a hand basket, it is really nice to be proven wrong. So your youth and your sensitive gives me hope. Thank you.

 

I hope you return to answer some questions. The bible and the Hebrews seem to be the foundation of our trail by peers. Why peers? Jesus said, don't run to Roman authorities with your accusations of the wrongs done by another, but find someone to go with you and go talk with this person. Why do you think justice should be impersonal and blind?

 

For sure our facial expressions and tone of voice add information to our communications. And sometimes they can really mess up our message. I prefer written communications, because the process of writing puts me in a more analytical mode, and have I have more control over my communication. But yeah, we have all said or written things, been shocked by how someone interprets our communication. No matter how well we control our words, we can not control how someone interprets them.

 

Something came up since I began this thread. My granddaughter was arrested because she lost her composure with a police officer. I am anxious to know how the trial goes. Being emotional, especially when it is a mother trying to protect her child, should not lead to a criminal record, but this was an event connected with Occupy, and Occupy foolishly did things that lead to a bad reputation, so now the police target Occupy people, and the public assumes police action is justified, making loosing ones composure with a police officer, a possible jail sentence, and criminal record that be an employment and housing problem. I am really afraid for her and her son.

 

I have been told the police officer was suspended and the police department is embarrassed by his actions, and that the charges maybe dropped. Also, this happened one year after a mentally ill woman killed a police officer and I think that played an important part in the what happened, because the police officers was close to the one who was killed, and on the anniversary of the death of a fellow officer his judgment wasn't so good. Kind of like the soldier who went crazy and killed several Afghan citizens. His judgment was bad, my granddaughter reacted badly, and really hurt herself by getting upset and "resisting arrest", but she was in a park with her child, and what happens to the child when Mom is taken to jail, Crazy! Makes me question the sanity of having a law against arrest. It was all an emotionally charge drama that had nothing to do with criminal activity, but can lead to long term employment and housing problems, because we now keep files on people and judge them what is in a file. She can be denied housing and jobs, simply because of having a charge in her file, and no one is obligated to ask her for an explanation. If 25 people apply for a job, and one has a police file, it is a no brainer to throw that application in the waste basket. She doesn't have the skills and years of work experience to be that competitive, and things could easily go from bad to worse. Our society was not like this. We had laws protecting our privacy and we had good reason for that. Just as there is good reason for keeping files on people and judging them by what is in a file.

What kind of society do we want?

It has been said that I accuse of moderators doing things they do not do, and from my point of view, moderators have accused others of doing things they might not be doing. For example trolling, and preaching. Isn't that really a personal judgement depending on ones point of view? I know I preach, and I question authority, yet it was argued I have not violated the rule, and should not be concerned about being banned. In another forum I was accused of trolling and was really offended by that. The point of a public trail is assuring justice and it gives the established power legitimacy. Like discussing our constitution and freedom of religion and freedom of speech, is about increasing political awareness, so too the subject of the importance of a trail. Were rulers in the past bad guys, or are there good reasons for having public trails with a jury of peers?

Athena,

 

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but this "X factor" that you speak of is your idea of an objective standard that we can use for testing our actions against in order to build a future that is "good for us". Yes? Yet this idea you have has no substance as of now. It is something that you are wishing to find so that you "know" you are right, moral, sensible and forthright in your decisions towards the future that you seek. It would a tool that we could use to convince people of the legitimacy of various actions.

 

You have also created a target for action it seems, the target of liberty, and are convinced of its righteousness as a goal and believe there is this X factor that will prove to us that it was the true path of our race after all. I don't believe in the X factor i'm sorry. I think humans make their own standards and try and move in a direction that satisfies them. Even a standard such as happiness with its mundane chemical causes and gordian social causes is still a standard that various individual's [decide?] upon.

 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with arguing for liberty (or happiness), but this X factor is the weakest point of your argument. It is baseless at present and belongs in the realm of mysticism. Inciting it as a reason that people 'should' believe in it due to then being able to assent to the ideal of liberty more readily makes it more so. Solid arguments are built on solid foundations.

 

Apologies if i offend, and like i said, forgive me if i'm wrong

 

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. Unfortunately, I am running scared. I pissed some mods off, and anyone can be banned when the mods are pissed, because if we are breaking the rules bad enough to be banned, or not, is a matter of opinion, and pissing mods off can lead to them justifying banning someone, so it is my intention to stay gone for awhile, until things cool down. But now I am in a bind because things really could look bad if I don't justify my argument and that this thread as political in nature. Like what happens between an individual and a forum is not earth shaking, but how we understand our freedoms, and how they are protected, for example trail by a jury of peers, can be an earth shaking matter. Especially today, we could plug trail information into a computer and save the cost of a jury. That may or may not get a more just judgment. Or just skip the trail and rely on Home Land Security. Anyway, I just found this and I think this is where the argument begins.

 

 

 

<b>http://www.spaceandm...oicism-Zeno.htm<br data-mce-bogus="1"></b>

 

 

God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature. In one sense, every life is in harmony with Nature, since it is such as Nature's laws have caused it to be; but in another sense a human life is only in harmony with Nature when the individual will is directed to ends which are among those of Nature. Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature. The wicked, though perforce they obey God's law, do so involuntarily; in the simile of Cleanthes, they are like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes. In the life of an individual man, virtue is the sole good; such things as health, happiness, possessions, are of no account. Since virtue resides in the will, everything really good or bad in a man's life depends only upon himself. He may be poor, but what of it? He can still be virtuous. He may be sentenced to death, but he can die nobly, like Socrates. Other men have power only over externals; virtue, which alone is truly good, rests entirely with the individual. Therefore every man has perfect freedom, provided he emancipates himself from mundane desires. (Zeno of Citium, 300 - 260 B.C.)

<b><br data-mce-bogus="1"></b>

 

We all participate in asking and answering the questions. It is an on going process in a democracy, where there is rule by reason, not men ruling over men, and I feel betrayed by someone I considered a friend for so distorting my position on this matter. Without mods and gods, there is only our arguments until we have agreement on the best reasoning. Unlike the word of God, it is logos, our own reasoning of the reason something is good or bad. This depends on our virtue. Those without virtue can not be given unrestricted freedom of speech and those with virtues should not be denied freedom of speech. It frightens me when people argue in favor of ruling like the church of old, or a country that denies freedom of speech. Such denial of freedom of speech is also denial of the freedom to seek truth. It is so different to say you are wrong, and to provide better reasoning, than to say you can't say that, because it is really ignorant. The one advances knowledge and the other advances unequal power. What is our reasoning, and how do we make sure that reason has the power of our culture?

 

"If we want freedom, we must extend it to everyone, whether rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not, no matter what their race or the color of their skin." Wendell Willkie, did not say no matter what their religion, but the constitution of the United States does. That is, words can be said, so long as they do not violate human decency. But our technological society is moving towards technological correctness and this is equal to the control of the church of old. It is dangerous and we should not go there. Freedom, even when we disagree. And for darn sure I am preaching- as though my life, my country, and the future of the children I love, depends on this. I am speaking from my heart and feel the passion, and know this is preaching. God forgive me if I am wrong.

Athena, please don't think that I am being rude, I do not wish to cause you any offence, but you have not answered any questions or explained what on earth you are talking about. We really are not getting anywhere unless you explain to us what you mean. It also seems to be a far cry from the original post about freedom of speech. I suspect that you actually wanted the post to be about this mysterious "God" you mention who is not the God of Abraham.

 

Frankly, I am blown away by the communication problem. Yes, this did get far from constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion, and I am really disappointed about that. Thomas Jefferson wrote of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", and he picked this up from the Roman Statesman Cicero who studied in Athens. I did not realize this is so mysterious to everyone, or that a discussion of this would be so impossible.

 

Whatever, things are going badly, and I better take my leave before they get worse. I am curious if you all know of the Deist and that Jefferson edited everything out of the bible that is not compatible with science? Strange and mysterious God? I don't think so. It is perhaps the most part of our history and directly tied to our constitutional freedoms. Oh well, I better stay gone for while.

Athena, i wish i could understand what you are saying, or asserting, but in all honesty i have tried now for several years and I am no closer to understanding this X-factor you keep talking about. In fact your ideas seem, to me at least, to be under mining the very concept of liberty. I don't mind admitting I would be very hesitant to move to a society where your ideas were expressed as law.

 

For me the idea of some mysterious something that rules everyone but is unfathomable could be used to justify anything, pretty much the same way god has been used through out history to justify anything the ruling class deemed as correct in the eyes of god...

 

Can you explain how the X works in algebra?

 

What is the objection to laws based on our knowledge of nature and universal laws? How do you understand the bases of democratic laws?

 

Yes, I am also finding science is really unfathomable. I was really trying hard to grasp what was being said in the thread about orbiting electrons, but do not have a good understanding of all the theories, and then when I couldn't follow someone explanation because it was delete, I was so upset I could no longer focus on a question I have asking for many years. What determines the spin? It seems to mean the big bang could have resulted for a reverse spin, creating a yin and yang effect, resulting in everything coming out of nothing. This stuff is really hard for me to fathom. Something mysterious controls the whole of reality, and you don't have a problem with it. You only have a problem the word "God".

 

I am strongly opposed to the mythology of the God of Abraham, so why do you keep referring to this God's mythology when you argue with me?

 

When you think of right and wrong, what is your point of view? Do you come from your personal point of view, or attempt to imagine universal law? Is your time frame the present, or several generations in the past and future?

 

I am please to hear that you are feeling better, life's a bitch when you don't feel well.

 

 

 

 

Athena, this really makes no sense to me, I have read it and tried to understand where you are coming from, but you dont actually say anything tangible. You talk of God but I dont understand how you connect Nazi Germany with the USA and christianity. Unless you are saying that the fact both countries believed God was on their side is proof that God is a made up concept?

 

 

 

 

[/b]Why the bold text, when you overuse it so it ceases to have the desired impact. There is no doubt that Greek and Roman culture had strong impacts upon our civilisations, as did Egyptian, ancient Chinese and many others. Please can you explain what you mean, by "This God", which God? You do know that not all democracies are in Christian countries, and that not all Christian countries are democracies don't you? Indeed, my own, the UK was an absolute monarchy for 1651 years from the birth of Christ until a man called Oliver Cromwell replaced the monarchy by a partially elected system. It was almost 300 years later that it became a true democracy. Where was "This God" all of that time?

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I dont understand this at all, your points are lost on me.

 

 

 

 

Sorry to disagree, but you did totally misrepresent English history, and the causes of the Russian revolution in your earlier post, and I strongly recommend that you read up on it. There is absolutely tons of information freely available. Bolding your text also does not make it a truth, but if you would like to post exactly what you mean by Complete truths, with the associated facts I would be most grateful.

 

How well educated are you in the classics, the spread of them, and result of popular awareness of them? How did you go about gaining this knowledge? Was it college classes or a informal, personally directed education? Maybe you can give us some pointers on how to be well informed? Personally, I enjoy tapes from The Teaching Company, and books are also valuable. One of my favorite books is "The Great Political Thinkers" and one of my favorite thinkers is Cicero, although I do fault him for his failure to understand economic reality and its effect on social/ political conditions.

 

I bold my text for those who only skim, hoping they will notice the important points, and knowing they will not read all the explanations.

 

Can you explain your failure to understand why no one can write a book telling us everything we need to know. I think it would be easier for you to write that explanation, than for me to explain why it can not be done. For one thing, our logic is linear and reality is not. In the east it is known that whenever we speak of one thing, we speak of the opposite as well, but in the west this is not understood. Secondly, not even encyclopedias contain the whole truth.

Saw this in the online news today. Very interesting concerning all kinds of possible applications in medicine, and possible biological applications galore, besides probably in the foreseeable future, the creation of man-made life.

//

//

 

The bible doesn't cover the moral decisions before us today. It is very exciting that have this science, but we have the wisdom to use it well?