dimreepr

Astrology doesn't denote any distinct religious system, but it was very intertwined with ideas about fate and divine revelation.

Don’t confuse religion with what has been done in its name; essentially religion seems to be trying to convey a means to enjoy life and so would facilitate life (and thus help); rather than dictate a doctrine that hinders life.

I agree with much of what you are saying however society as a whole in the United States is not to a point where the measures you have stated would be tolerated. Perhaps someday but not now. We can't even ban military grade assault weapons.

I would like to see legislation passed requiring gun locks on all firearms not stored in a gun safe and a requirement for gun safes to be owned by anyone possessing more than 5 firearms with the caveat that at least half of all guns owned be stored with when not in use. No authority physically inspect anyone's home. A citizen simply signs a statement of acknowledgement of the requirement when purchasing a firearm. Then if a firearm ends up stolen, used in a crime, accidental shooting, or etc the authorities would have some legal footing to investigate if the gun owner was behaving responsibly. If it turns out they weren't than they should be held liable.

This answer seems to show the gulf in cultural thinking between America and the rest of the world. Why, for instance, settle on “5 firearms” rather than one and “when not in use” has a very limited definition.

To me ‘spirituality’ is only espoused by those that try very hard but fail to understand, the meaning of and the road to, contentment.

Well, of course I wouldn't be happy to starve - who would. But the fault would still be mine for not being astute enough to spot that the person was an idiot and or a liar.

 

I'm sorry, but that is, and must be, the facts. That's called taking responsibility for decisions we make.

 

I'm sorry, but we cannot divorce ourselves from the consequences of what we do. Although and in contrast, from what I seem to see and read in the media, divorcing ourselves from the consequences of what we do seems fashionable these days.

So the average citizen must be blamed for not being bright enough to spot a professional Politian’s lies?

Given your monochromic view of the world I have serious doubts of your abilities in that area.

Of course we are responsible for our actions but when those actions are by another, who may have deceived/coerced to gain your approval, they cease to be our actions.

A potentially attainable technology is, perhaps, a photovoltaic cell that could be printed onto, something like, vinyl and so could be applied to the entire house/building rather than just the roof.

"May be plentiful in the middle of the Sahara desert , but distribution to where you want it is very very difficult ."

The point is your idea has exactly the same issues but with no immediate method to solve them whereas at least my idea builds on working tech; meaning it works now, can be applied now and at no, excessive, cost .

Both. I'm sorry, but they voted for a liar (your word). If we vote a lunatic into power and the lunatic makes a complete Horlicks of everything, who is to blame? I say the voters.

So if you voted for a liar or idiot (not that they advertise that information) and he/she bugger things up, you’d be happy to starve?

Voting is a serious business. We get what we vote for.

Not everyone does.

It is interesting that Sunlight, which is a composite group of high frequency electro magnetic waves are themselves falling to earth, say on a human body at 1000 watts ( 1 kilowatt ) of energy over each square meter , which is approximately a human flattened out . This is of course at very very high frequency , which is penetrating .

 

So compared to my long waves ( comparatively low frequency - much less penetrating ) of 100 watts ( 0.1 kilowatt ) per square meter .

I think we could accept this showering of energy from above a good thing ?

 

Mike

What you seem to be proposing is a high cost uncertain technology to send ten times less energy to earth than the sun already provides and that we can already collect; so my question is why?

If seems we are forgetting we live in a democracy. If the people elect a government that takes them to purgatory then, I'm sorry, but they can't complain.

 

 

But to return to democracy. The Greeks had a referendum a week or so back which said NO. So I presume the Greek politicians will adhere to that result. No! Do you mean they won't keep a promise?

You can’t have it both ways:

The Greeks should be held to account because they voted for the gov that buggered things up.

If the Greeks were lied to why should they be made to suffer?

So which is it?

Besides why should those that didn’t vote for the gov be made to suffer?

When did astrology become a religion?

Good point.

Yeah, AI would only have trouble with emotion if no one bothered to program in a simulation of emotional response. Which makes sense, because why would you for most things that you'd use an AI for? But that's not the same thing as their being unable to do so if we wanted them to.

 

And if you want to see some creativity, look at what Google's image-processing AI has been doing recently with some tweaked setting. It's produced some real Dali-eat-your-heart-out work.

But however sophisticated the simulation and however intelligent the machine it will never understand a human.

Because it will understand the conditions in which an emotional response is present but will never feel the emotion.

 

However, has religion ever helped?

 

In the early days, more so than now, I have absolutely no doubt religion has helped many people, greatly.

My only real objection to religion, other than genocide in its name, is its desire to convert everyone; even when those they seek to convert share the same basic beliefs (whether through god or other).

Is there such a thing as a 'fundamental human right' ?

Indeed, that. seems to be the question.

Not everything worth fighting for is a right. I would fight to save my marriage (were it in trouble) but that doesn't mean I have the right to keep it (or even to be married in the first place).

 

So which question are you trying to answer - what's worth fighting for, or what rights are worth fighting for?

I'm asking the question, not trying to answer it.

A bonus is never a right. It's a bonus - it doesn't matter how long you received it.

So is a pension?

Let’s forget legality, just for the moment, in order to determine the line that it’s legitimate to fight for.

Good question.

I’ll start with an obvious example of a privilege that over time becomes a right; let’s say your employer, for the last ten years, has given you £/$ 1000 Christmas bonus and this year they retract it, my question, how many unions would let that slide?

We need to recognise the difference between a fundamental ‘human right’ and a right born of privilege and be prepared to give up a few privileges for the greater good, sometimes.

So... where do we draw the line?

If your beliefs negatively impacts on others, like trying to convert an atheist, then stop; otherwise feel free to believe what you want, if it helps.

That's not it either; just read my initial link in post #3

Morals or moral hazard! I never mentioned morals at all. It's more to do with ending up with destitution and chaos - possibly even anarchy. Morals don't enter the equation.

 

And nothing to do with economics!! Now I've heard it all.

 

Different concepts!! Now we're into gobbledygook with concepts. It's money, if you haven't spotted the point. You know, that stuff one has to work hard for, and pay taxes for the privilege. And what might happen to those taxes you've worked hard to pay? Your government might on this occasion, after writing-off loans already made, give some of this hard earned as further loans - which, in the fullness of time, may also never get repaid.

 

With luck, any leaders that undertake a policy of writing-off and lending more feel the power of democracy when seeking a plebiscite when the people speak at the next election.

 

It's got nothing to do with politic speak like 'concepts' and 'morals'.

Your understanding of this subject borders on the laughable; I’m sure iNow will highlight the reasons.

i don't believe you ever can truly forgive someone if they hurt you strongly. A daughter can never truly forgive her mother for abusing her physically. The families of murdered children never forgive the murderer. A child may forgive his friend for stealing his lollipop.

 

It certainly depends on the gravity of the act, but because of the fact that things that impact you cannot be easily forgotten, therefore it is hard to truly forgive, the definition of forgiveness is mostly seen throughout biblical interpretations, which state to offer a sacrifice, to lose something of yourself out of human compassion in order to forgive someone. And that I must say is utterly useless and you do not have to forgive everybody that hurts you. It is your choice to make and shouldn't be tied to anyone else's point of view.

Again (the same nonsensical reply in my other thread) you have obviously not read any of this thread either; this only compounds my opinion that your thread contains nothing meaningful.

I don't think money is the only source of happiness or the only cause for unhappiness which is what I think the matter at hand is. It would be terribly absurd to think so. In fact I think this thread in general is almost useless seeing that it is obvious people get their happiness from almost anything, it is a basic human necessity to be content, it's what drives us away from suicide.

 

A boy in central Africa could be extremely happy to have found a source of clean water, where a middle class white male can be extremely unhappy because his Wi-Fi is taken down for 20 minutes.

 

This is not a useful question.

You’re conflating happiness with contentment and as that has been addressed in post #6 I assume you haven’t read the thread; so your opinion as to the validity of the question can safely be ignored.

This reply is exactly why I asked for a contribution in your thread; so I see no reason to bother with a reply but thanks for your efforts.

And yet your solution is to borrow and spend more.

It’s a historically validated method to stimulate growth and therefore viable now.

That's not what I'm talking about. What I was talking about is the Earth isn't perfectly spherical. It's wider around the belt, the equator, so the poles are like a lower elevation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

While "radius" normally is a characteristic of perfect spheres, the Earth deviates from a perfect sphere by only a third of a percent, sufficiently close to treat it as a sphere in many contexts and justifying the term "the radius of the Earth".

 

So you think dimreepr has correctly understood your point of view?

 

I confess I am not a big globe trotter but living around Houston means the world comes to you, in a sense.

It’s not about being correct; true understanding is born of mistakes.