Coldfire's Waterfall
People assume that evolution explains where consciousness comes from.
I don't think this is a widely held belief Joe. I'm sure there might be some people who speculate that evolution can explain how or why consciousness developed in certain life forms, but its not something that gets posited in mainstream science. Not yet anyway.
How consciousness developed in life forms is certainly an intriguing question worth studying but saying that not having an answer presents a problem for the theory of evolution is fallacious.
So basically “God of the gaps”
It’s apparent that this is all God ever was or ever will be.
As more and more discoveries are made about the world we live in through the use of science the belief in a creator becomes increasingly irrelevant.
There is no shame in saying that we don’t know something; plugging “God” in to any question we haven’t answered yet is both lazy and dishonest. Our ancestors didn’t have some sort of ancient mystical knowledge about the universe, nor is such a hidden message contained within their scribblings.
It would benefit our species greatly if we were to once and for all end this fanatical search for God in things we don’t understand; its nothing but wishful thinking. I predict that until we do end this God delusion we will continue to see these whimpers of a dying breath in the form of “well maybe God is [insert some unoriginal vague description here]!”
but can you blame the food industry? If people are gullible enough to believe the values of their claims??!
Yes. I can blame them for being deceptive. For being more concerned with profit then the betterment of the species. Many things.
I don't think it absolves the population for being gullible or uninformed, but I also don’t consider them to have sole culpability or even the primary cause for blame.
The person who deceives or the person who trust the deceiver. One of these people has poor intentions.
The Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax (or movement as I consider it) is an attempt to demonstrate how easily people can be persuaded to believe in things at face value; it’s an illustration of the utter lack of critical thought within the majority of the population.
This common display of ignorance can be witnessed through the use of just about every form of media, news and advertisement. It is the life blood of biased propaganda which utilizes clever rhetoric to persuade an audience. Whether or not the information is founded on relevant facts is not important; those facts can be skewed and presented in such a way where people are quick to jump on the bandwagon and believe in the “shocking so it must be true” value of a claim.
The examples are practically limitless but one in particular that seems very similar to the Dihydrogen Monoxide example is the controversy over high fructose corn syrup. HFCS is virtually identical to regular table sugar from a chemical perspective. The controversy built up around it persuades people to believe that the unhealthy aspect in eating high sugar foods isn’t in the fact that they’re full of sugar but because HFCS is not “real” or “natural” sugar, therefore it must be harmful to the body. As a result, we see people fervently searching ingredient labels for the dreaded HFCS, but are entirely okay with a label that lists its first or second ingredient as sugar as long as its “natural” sugar… meanwhile obesity/heart disease/diabetes continues. Corporations 1 : Dimwitted population 0
To say it can is to say it’s possible. Considering the wide range of artistic expression and the amount of art throughout history, I believe it is not only possible but very probable that art be one of many factors that can influence a person’s sense of self.
An hypothetical example:
Suppose you are contacted by a historian and agree to meet with him. The historian presents you with a painting by a very well-known artist. The historian says that it was discovered that this artist has a journal where he mentions your great great great grandfather as being the sole inspiration for the painting. In the painting, the historian points out a person in the background who bears striking resemblance to your mentioned ancestor. You then remember how often your relatives say you strongly take after your great great great grandfather.
I would think that if this doesn’t influence a person’s sense of self then it’s not a measure of arts inability to influence but a measure of that person’s apathy.
I am trying to point out to the error in your ways.
You might find that cherry picking the one statement out of context to support your view is not the best way to do so.
Here is the context:
Question: “Should we stop teaching men to never hit women”
Answer: “No, I don’t think we should stop teaching men to never hit women.”
Your words misrepresent you to other people. It requires extra effort from the people who read your argument to determine what you actually mean. I am trying to explain to you how your words sound when someone reads them.
I’m sure other people can speak for themselves.
My words do not need to be interpreted in any way other than the way I stated them. If you, or anyone else, interprets my statements incorrectly through making incorrect assumptions or taking things out of context, that is no error of mine.
We currently ONLY teach that men should not hit women.
I have three daughters. I teach them not to hit, I know many parents in my community that teach hitting as wrong no matter what gender you are. In fact, I don't know of any parent or teacher that teaches that girls can hit and guys can't.
There is a common misconception among people as they get older in thinking that men should be held to that standard more than women out of a sense of chivalry and that women are under the impression that they are untouchable even if they don't uphold their end of that standard, but I don’t think it would benefit us to teach men that it’s ok to hit women in order to counter the fact that women are not currently being held at the same standard as men. So no, I don’t think we should stop teaching men to never hit women.
I also don't think women should assume that they are free to do or say what they want without any consequences, as I stated. But considering my stance on violence, I don't think being hit should ever be one of those consequences, even if they hit first.
I feel your argument was incomplete because you used softer words to represent how women should behave. They need to understand instead of being taught. There is no implied punishment with not understanding something. If you are taught not to hit someone it is clear that there is a problem when you do hit someone. Your position on female violence is wishy washy, but your stance on male violence is firm.
This is what I mean when I say you assume too much. Please re-read your words here.
if you decide to use hugs instead, you will hug her every time she smacks you upside the head? And if when you stop hugging her she smacks you again, you'll just hug her some more?
When I worked as an aid for the mentally handicapped and when I was in security we were trained to use take-downs and techniques to disable a threat. “Hugging” a perp (maneuvering behind, and clasping our arms around the person’s arms and mid-section) was one such technique. There were several holds and take-downs we were taught to use that didn’t involve hitting.
While this can still be considered violent to some, they present alternatives to hitting for self-defense.
My complaint about your post is that it was incomplete. You continued the status quo without addressing the issue that violence is bad from women as well.
“Women should understand that they are not free to say or do whatever they want without any consequence”
”I also don’t think men, or anyone for that matter, should ever consider violence a justified resolution."
Let’s not do this thing again where you completely ignore relevant information in my comment.
Cherry picking the one thing that can be construed to support your view only makes you look like an idiot.
You allude to it, but don't directly mention that women shouldn't be violent.
“Women should understand that they are not free to say or do whatever they want without any consequence”
”I also don’t think men, or anyone for that matter, should ever consider violence a justified resolution.”
I did not make any assumptions. I was not saying that you believe women should be held to a different standard, but that your words indicate that women should be held to a different standard because you never mention how women behave.
"Never mention how women behave." Correct, so whatever assumptions you infer from that are your own doing.
I never mention how men behave either for that matter; just that violence should not be used.
I disputed you because you left out the fact that women shouldn't be violent either.
”I also don’t think men, or anyone for that matter, should ever consider violence a justified resolution.”
but only said that we need to stay the course with teaching men not to hit women.
Again, that statement was in direct response to the debate question
Do I think we should stop teaching men to never hit women? No, I think we should continue to teach it.
You’re assumption of what I mean by that, as if I mean “women shouldn’t be held at the same standard” is incorrect as indicated by the rest of my comment. You’re cherry picking.
I honestly don't even know why you do this kind of shit man, you're better than this, I've seen it. Why do you misrepresent someone and then argue that misrepresentation? Its a lot like what Joe does, but at least he leaves a little ;) after his comment so that people know not to take him seriously. Do you intend to be taken seriously? because you come off as being a troll.
Hitting is a form of disrespect.
It can be. In that sense it only strengthens my view that people shouldn’t hit.
But it’s not as defined as you suggest.
If I smack my wife on the ass, it’s not because I disrespect her.
A person who spanks their child doesn’t necessarily mean they disrespect them.
If she hits you, she disrespects you.
If I get smacked for ogling a girl when she bends over, it’s because I deserved it in my opinion. It’s my wife’s way of letting me know she saw me and she’s offended.
I don’t agree that violence is the best way to resolve a situation, but I don’t deny its effectiveness.
it doesn't add up to a loving marriage
My marriage is just fine thank you; we’re very loving.
You assume too much. It should be obvious, considering even you noticed it, that I do not intend to imply that women be held at a different standard.
“Women should understand that they are not free to say or do whatever they want without any consequence”
”I also don’t think men, or anyone for that matter, should ever consider violence a justified resolution.”
”“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.””
”So no, I don’t think we should stop teaching men to never hit women”
My statement here was in direct response to the debate question. Whatever incorrect assumptions that can be drawn from it are not my implication.
Next time you want to dispute someone based on your own incorrect assumptions, I recommend you request clarity from them instead.
Are you telling me you wouldn't feel any sense of panic or necessity to strike back in defense?
It depends on the threat, but I would most likely try to prevent the attack to the best of my ability such as by restraining the attacker or holding them down until I could get away or help arrived.
Even if you personally would not fight back, are you saying that another person who WOULD react that way wouldn't be justified to do so?
Wouldn’t be justified to start hitting back? No. I don’t believe two wrongs make a right.
His fiancé has been quoted as admitting to hitting him before he struck her. It is absurd to say he had no right to defend himself.
Defending oneself can take many forms that don’t require fist fights. Hugging the person tight and restraining them until they either calm down or aid arrives for instance.
When someone is put in a situation where they feel threatened its is a biological function to either run away or fight the threat that they are confronted with.
A biological instinct when someone strikes you in a vulnerable area is to guard that area, if we are struck in the head we reflexively move our arms up to shield the area. The decision to retaliate can serve as a defense mechanism as well but it is not a reflex, it is a conscious learned behavior, and as I said it can take several forms.
I get what Whoopi is saying here, and I agree.
Women should understand that they are not free to say or do whatever they want without any consequence, but I also don’t think men, or anyone for that matter, should ever consider violence a justified resolution. So no, I don’t think we should stop teaching men to never hit women.
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
My 3 year old daughter would have surpassed that 'Words Spoken' stat a while ago...
Her mouth is always going, like someone who thinks out loud, or rather someone who is incapable of doing otherwise.
I’m convinced she doesn’t even realize she’s talking most of the time.
Yes, the US contains about 5% of the species population yet consumes almost 25% of the worlds ready resources.
We cannot sustain a planet if all nations were using this type of economic model.
I think it is also interesting to note that the US also leads the world in production of waste. A quarter of the worlds waste is produced by the US.
We consume a quarter of the worlds resources and produce a quarter of the worlds waste... my retarded brother would see the flaw in this.
Who is telling the world that they can buy happiness? Is it something that is being inferred from other things being said, in advertisements or something?
This is probably the most apparent source of the misconception, though there are others. Education, politics, news, social media etc.
Am I just missing the message through some quirk in the particular assortment of advertisements I'm exposed to?
I’m not sure what types of advertisements you’re exposed to, but I’m almost certain that it doesn’t matter. The ‘message’ is so pervasive that I’m sure you’ve been exposed to it in one way or another.
Its no secret really, like a subliminal message; its actually blatantly obvious, its just that we’ve been conditioned to accept it as commonplace and fail to recognize the immorality and danger involved.
I'm genuinely curious here.
Then I would recommend you watch “Ethos” narrated by Woody Harrelson (there may be a better quality version then the one attached)
This is just one reference off the top, if you’re interested I can list a few more to take a look at.
In my research of the documentary I found a few things I don’t agree with entirely, but nothing that takes away from the overall message. Which can be summed up as “spend your money wisely, be informed, and don’t be manipulated.”
