So since no one wants to say the obvious.

It's the nature of the human animal. The human condition. Everyone. everyone. is biologically predisposed to favor similarity and familiarity over anything else. Google "babies are racist". Something is familiar or comfortable it's likely to be safer. Otherwise, it may not be. Example, living in a grassy plain for hundreds of generations. You know it's safe, you travel far enough to see the terrain change, some will instinctively stick to what they know, some will venture outward. Perhaps beyond that plain lies danger and those inclined to venture never make it back. So, those who instinctively stick to what they know, live, survive, and reproduce. Just biology.

When you have an open society with no religious mandate in education or morality, as such defines "freedom" apparently.. you're subject to society and biology. Which if you Google'd what I mentioned, would not be unexpected. Aside from that the media, not news media but movies, TV, and music. People don't like watching happy and fulfilling things when theres more emotionally thrilling options. They find it boring and dull. When I was growing up kids didn't want to play crash bandicoot they wanted to play grand theft auto. If you didn't play it and couldn't relate to what they were talking about you were an outsider to the group. A lame-o. Many don't outgrow this mindset even in old age.

That's the why. As for the solution. Well. State churches were abolished. One pivotal one has just been burned. Otherwise. Good luck.

If you're truly concerned about the why and the solution. You have to look in other countries were whites are the minority and non-whites are the majority. Are things any different? They might be. If they're a statistical minority yet remain an influential functional majority. If so obviously the concept is not effectively present.

The peaceful protestors don't want everything destroyed. — Marchesk

What?! Come on man. I'm sorry. Surely you meant they don't want anything destroyed. Right?

@christian2017

Well, separate the artist from the art and say what you need to say.

Huh. Bet I can top ya. I think an all-seeing and all-knowing super being is watching you and me right now and one day will come to destroy the whole planet after his winged children do some crazy things first. Oh, you too? :)

Anything can happen dude. The world could end before you finish reading this sentence.



It is severely unlikely that would happen. Total chaos? Martial law? Media/phone/internet blackout? Mass killing? All possible. You know for an alleged man of faith you're awfully concerned with the world and its ways. Eh. So am I.

I dunno. Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? They're different sure, most do focus on one thing at a time for best results.

As far as how do you know when you're 'qualified' to study one you'd naturally ask a teacher or professor, who should only be a few doors down or a floor away for you. Post more. Lots of smart people here. They'll show you what you need to know by pointing out any flaws in your logic. And you'll learn from it.

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

It's usually either chaos or order. Religion, philosophy, math, science. Though many often intersect.

Madness is generally incoherent whereas eccentricity is a mere.. trait. Someone who blends in and is satisfied with the pleasures of this world or the state of a society often doesn't spend their time figuring things out.

California? Not a bad idea. There's better places domestically. Rural but within a half hour or so to a large enough town. Somewhere you have internet. Which is probably everywhere now.

Ironic part is your assessment of the place along with a few others on this forum is because it is so open and media is not censored. Others have freedom lite as I call it. Every other place is perfect because there's no real comparison. Here you can burn the flag, view ISIS websites, record everyone and everything and yeah, share it. Doesnt mean you won't be monitored or even retaliated on but... it's unlikely you'll just end up missing one day.

I wouldn't call it introspection as none of it involves anything internal aside from programmed algorithms. That said, they already do. Nothing emotional or human but self analysis ie. Disk defrag, system health, etc.

I'm assuming you mean AI and beyond that some capacity for emotion? I wouldn't call it dystopian as much as I'd call it annoying. Like how your smartphone asks if you want to delete an app you haven't used in a while. Itd be annoying if it sent a notice akin to "I'm sad, you haven't used me in a while. Should I just delete myself?" Or something. Lol.

What your talking about is an I, Robot kind of deal. Where everything is computerized and connected including all instruments of force/civil defense.

I suppose it could. If you program it that way.

Ha. Nice. :P

That said it can test one's mindset, ability to focus, manage anger, faith in soundness and sincerity of arguement, etc. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger I suppose.

I do think there is a big difference in an extremely critical yet logical assessment or chastisement of a belief as opposed to vulgar ad homs.

Example. I say God is real, good, loves us all, and just wants us to be with him in love and harmony.

Someone responds, "yeah that's why people are starving, suffering, and being horribly killed and raped all around the world right now as we speak. That's beyond idiotic. That's your God? That's what he does and lets happen? That's love and goodness to you? It's people like you who are why people view religious people as a cancer!"

Give or take some vulgarity. Basically. The respondent hits all the valid criticisms. It alerts the issuer of the statement to its unanswered logical fallacies. It is up to the issuer to gauge whether or not he is knowledgable enough to respond or accept that more study is needed.

As opposed to just a response of "You're a deluded f***wad."

Now that respondent can and probably would include why. For example, there is no available, concise, absolute proof of God. Or that compassionate or trusting people get taken advantage of often and so seems foolish. Or again, the suffering.

In a free and open society where free speech is allowed, it is to be expected. I like decent people. I tend to avoid rude or degenerate ones. Of course, speaking nice doesn't necessarily mean anything in regards to content of character so. I digress.

"The whole is more than the sum of its parts"

https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law

It is a big deal. See the penalties.

All I know is my wife can leave me and take my kids, half my lifes work, and any remaining dignity essentially. I do the same, yeah. Nada. It's pretty equal here dude. Depends where you're at I guess.

My view of gender roles is coincided with typical features, not consistant. The man is usually bigger so he does most of the hard work, the woman is usually more 'compassionate' so tends to the children.

Women are the fairer sex so yeah are usually weaker. Which means they should be protected or at least respected. In a man no one likes a crybaby so he should be able to tough out a considerable amount more, physically and mentally.

He who does not seek to understand and tolerate the system will never change it and so will remain a ward to it.



No. You must face what is not desired to be faced if you wish to overcome what has not yet been.

It's all very philosophical.

Anyway. Kind of dumb but maybe some basic thinking game you can play with others here? Like Chess, Scrabble, What Am I Describing?, or something. Where you can initiate a session and people can see and maybe join .. think itd be a fun and much needed relief from the nonstop.. everything. While still being somewhat productive. I dunno.

Maybe he was maybe he wasn't. That doesnt matter now because look what's happening. Domestic unrest. National guard/military police being deployed into states.

You want to destabilize a nation you exploit a vulnerable social tension. It just so happened to be race. Maybe not. I've discussed this with friends often. Maybe it was just a snapshot of current affairs and their problems and it all happened "organically" so to speak. I don't know. I do know it could have been and there are many people who stand to benefit from such a move.

Because of one phony American shill prick who knew exactly what he was doing and what it would cause long beforehand? Bet he had a terminal condition or some kind of debt that's suddenly paid off. Or family or associates that are no longer in the country. Story is beyond rotten. Cops make little money. Dude has three houses that we even know about. Married a supermodel. Worked together with the victim at the same club, which doesnt actually prove anything. Mugshot looks completely different from video stills. Everything about this is unusual and makes no sense

I agree there is something rotten in the Alamo here. All that's been proven is to not only anguish minorities but effectively puppeteer them into an army that steals, kills, and destroys their own community, causing immense damage to infrastructure, businesses, property values, and investor presence let alone confidence that will go unrepaired for generations to come ... is turn a low paid cop, often one with a debt or chronic condition, into a patsy. A 7 minute incident has turned into a 700 million dollar international crisis. Between damage, insurance, death, armed force deployments, lawsuits. Probably even more than that. Because of ONE man who KNEW very well what he was doing and what it would cause. White supremacists are probably laughing their ass off and high fiving eachother right now while minorities continue to march around and get arrested instead of furthering their education and becoming that cop.. that politician.. that professor.. that prosecutor.. whatever position it is that inequality resides in.

Just to clarify I was referring to my interpretation of each religion as being "probably incorrect".

A student? Meaning you're a teacher? If this is the kind of questions teachers these days are wondering, whatever diploma mill you got your certs from needs to be shut down.

The only remotely ethical argument that can be made is any man who would pay for something you can watch or essentially experience for free would've- somehow- inevitably wasted it on stupider things anyway.

Sorry I lost focus for a moment. Two questions. Is prostitution ethical? Rather is it unethical? If so, does using the money for something that benefits society as a whole redeem it? Prostitution spreads disease, cheapens a society and a people, and nine times out of ten makes for quite a few disappointed family members.

Consciousness is not a physical thing like blood or oxygen, we know where those are held. It is an actualization of things that are physical and metaphysical including senses, memories, and concepts such as time. It is performed by the brain, where memories are kept, simaltaneously and automatically to constitute self awareness. A basic form of this can be observed in animals.

Morality in and of itself is most certainly not cowardly. It can be foolish. Unnecessary. Fatal even. Which only serves to prove my point. Conformity to a majority ingrained system is what takes no effort and has no risk and so has no valor. As is living by or acting on one's most base, primal instincts. Anyone can get mad when insulted, an act that takes nothing from you. Or even otherwise screwed over, where it does. It takes strength to not become upset and override your primitive impulses. Not just anyone can do this as you can clearly see from this thread. What also isn't easy is thinking about anyone but yourself for just long enough, to realize doing so and establishing and following laws that differentiate right from wrong (morality) will and has helped in the long run. From eye for an eye to modern courts justice or morality gives people faith in the system and let's those who actually think do so and improve society. Up until 200 years ago we were basically crapping in holes as was done for several millenia.

If you want to relinquish morality and as a result its legislation and resulting innovation, essentially all modernity to live as animals do, crapping in holes and goring eachother for food and privilege, you and others like you should have a right to do so. Somewhere else, perhaps some island, hopefully in the path of a hurricane. Meanwhile, until you do such things and continue to use what was given to you by 'cowards' in your eyes, you're a hypocrite.

It could. Maybe it was a firefighter movie. lol

Fine. Shark in the water. Bomb on a train. Shooter at a concert. All things that have happened more than a few times. Those real enough for ya?

If you and your family are in a theater right now and someone does the same. People rush out in a panic trampling eachother many getting hurt, one of which being you, some getting killed, one of which being a family member. You don't think the individual who caused all that should be punished in any way? At least banned from the theater? lol

Or. Likely to cause people to get hurt. See, "yelling fire in a movie theater".

While I agree you could have definitely expanded a bit on this particular thread.. *hint*

It is reminiscent of another thread along the lines of free will vs. determinism. Myself I find pondering things that already happened have virtually no utility, same with taking the time to ponder and "feel" either liberated or restricted by the thought of either. What is, is. And what will be, will be.

I will say. Overthinking determinists are in fact predetermined to do less or at least have less motivation then one determined to believe in free will. I'd say this is a fact. True regardless of respective possibility.

If something damp leaves moisture on my finger when touched is there no such thing as water?

Now I have the right to use hate speech in the United States. It's protected speech. — NOS4A2

Yes and no. Yes in the sense the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled it is protected by the first amendment. It can be said speaking about law and order and justice is hateful against criminals. That Christianity is hateful and depending on verse is virtually threatening non-believers ie. Hell, punishment and whatnot. As would many religions.

Before we get to why, rather when it is not. Let's define hate speech. There are two widely held understandings, both related. First being abusive speech toward any group (which could literally be anything- even hateful ones themselves) especially when it targets a race, religion, or orientation. And the other is only when it targets one of those three. I could make a religion right now that says all people are garbage, so are governments, rights too, and God wants us to destroy all three. Now. I have a right to speak, recruit, and accomplish this.

It is not allowed in the sense when doing so in a setting that would cause a riot. For example, going to the George Floyd protest and saying things I frankly won't even type here. I'm sure you can think of some. People would get hurt, often those who you would be claiming to be speaking for, who happen to be present. You may be able to skirt away, but perhaps other wouldn't. Another reason why racial hate speech should be curtailed by their own first before it gets out of hand and people they claim to be speaking for just trying to live their lives end up dealing with whatever it is that was said. To summarize, racial hate speech is dumb and counterintuitive. And frankly should be illegal. It isn't in and of itself and so remains a utility to gauge a given group's hostility to an open and free nation's constitution.

You should read (or watch. I forget) "A Sound of Thunder" by someone I also forget.

So basically anyone can point to what is referred to as "a wingnut" of any persuasion and paint any group with a broad brush. One would assume or gather that each party, hopefully, has it's own productive and worthwhile goals and aspirations that coincide with logic, decency, and pragmatism that will benefit supporters and the nation alike. Whereas these individuals are more focused on how it can benefit themselves in a way that loses sight of anyone or anything else in a myopic and frankly stupid way thus unintentionally (or perhaps, in spy lingo, covertly aka intentionally) damaging or greatly reducing the chances of either and so can be discounted. Up until the point the group begins to embody or act on these views garnishing social stigma. Which though detrimental to the group itself, would be a victory for an opposing party. Just something to think about. Not for any prolonged period though. Basically. It's game of thrones, y'all. It may be a show. But we're all living in it.

You have free will to believe there is free will. This is determinism.

None of anyone's business I suppose but why does it trouble you? Things are perhaps not going your way? And if they were or perhaps you were determined to make different choices and soon become much better off and happier? Determinism would be great, would it not? Are you thinking something along the lines of I'm predetermined to not succeed as opposed to not being able to fail for long with enough effort? Couldn't hurt.

Probably a shortsighted analysis but sounds like a concept that can easily be over thought. If I drink and drive and start to really feel out of it far from home, I can't just "will" myself sober enough to make it home safely now can I? So, I am predetermined to instead pull over and perhaps call a friend or take a nap. What you have to answer to yourself is, if everything happens for a reason, what I assume the concept of determinism is. In a world largely governed by scientific and natural law, and non human beings governed largely by instinct, why does a being capable of creating, understanding, and then raising the question about the concept need to feel bound by it? Were you before? Why are you now?

Intuition. Guesses. Will. Theories. Etc?

I suppose the premise of any does boil down to either a fact or a non-fact. True or false. Accurate or inaccurate, rather. Or in the case of will, beneficial, detrimental, or as an extension less beneficial than could have been.

Basically that the connotation of dependent on the will of the people is arguable if one truly believes in rights given by God. What I was going on about at least. Of course since you mentioned 'seems' it doesn't specifically apply. As well as it being a document by men it very well could be a fallacy and exactly as you described. Per intent of those responsible for it. I was arguing more about the concept of such rights in a religiously absolute sense based on doctrine. Which of course is not necessarily here nor there.

Rights being G-d-given seems to be just a way of saying they apply to every person regardless of their wealth, race, gender, and to carry with it the connotation that rights are part of the will of the people and liable to go away once they are no longer valued by them. It would be sort of laughable to actually think people thought G-d literally descended from the heavens to bequeath them rights in some type of material form. — kudos

Gravity is a force, law, or commandment even we all have to live with men had nothing to do with. If we all stop thinking about it will we suddenly be able to fly? Assuming you believe in a god, why would that even be necessary? Like stating it'd be laughable for me to have to get inches away from a deer to shoot it. It would be. Out of sheer irrelevance.

No I suppose. Though in some jurisdictions it can be argued if you witness someone having a heart attack and they begin pleading for you to call 911. And you have your phone, in your hands even, and can easily do so and instead you just sit there and watch them die. Then continue using your phone. Especially or most importantly on camera, you could face something. Wouldn't you want that if you were said person?

Maybe. By posting here and reading the responses. You have been predetermined to now live as a non-determinalist. Determinalistically speaking of course. :wink:

But would a jury of his peers not see the person as more of a hero than a murderer? Depends I suppose.

I guess it comes down to why are you in a control room of a public transport facility vital to national security? Where is the authorized person? He would radio dispatch and be advised on what to do thus absolved of responsibility. Did you break in? Are you trained or therefore have specific knowledge in even what the controls would do? You might be wrong and they might shift a different track causing a collision of greater magnitude. All of this can be escaping from the original premise but. Just facts.

Casual 1500s geocentricist attitude. Hey at least we advanced from imprisoning people for presenting unproven beliefs to merely insulting their intelligence. Progress is progress I suppose.

This'll probably get removed too but when a group already controls state positions and all forces. The need to have a civilian platform is a non essential. It's for others who do not, under the guise of addressing a toxic minority of the majority so others will support the idea and cannot say it was done unfairly or without the will of the people. Social diffusion. Boy cries wolf with three boys each with their own flock. One however has his real sheep safe somewhere else. Story unfolds. Now all shepherd's cries fall on deaf ears. Classic power play.

Apparently it is to most legislators. See culpable homicide. The 1 vs. 5 element would have an interesting effect.

Having either neither or both would be conservative and choosing one or the other would be progressive?

Help me out here, OP. :razz:

Unexpressed thoughts. Or do they? Do they?

For anything... unfortunately that could be one. Even so. Rather. Ideally. For wanting to get out of bed each morning. To be excited to go to work, granted under the premise of earning more than is currently. I won't be biased. Capitalism can make work environments toxic. Hostile. Dog eat dog. Stepping on someone or even outright lying to get ahead even by putting a more qualified or worse nice person down. A culture of crab mentality that permeates every waking moment. Not going to blindly dismiss your point. It can lead to savagery and hate for others, the system, and even life itself.

However. We have laws. Not always followed. Justice. Not always served. By men, anyhow.

It's a work in progress. An experiment some say. Any man made system has its pros and cons I suppose. Eager to discuss further.

we plan on taking it — Bitter Crank

and since I don't drive — Bitter Crank

And there we go. The timeless, consistent, and age old reason why anyone does anything. "We" (I) take this. I do this so you should too. Never fails.

I'll be non biased. Is it terribly different from the "me, me, me" of capitalism and consumerism? Possibly not. Public transport and other services are so strict nowadays in both regulation, oversight, and direct funding it'd be a feat to differentiate already. There are laws that prevent nursing home abuse, the perpetrators and with enough time management can face harsh prison sentences. In a way, a buffer between any government wrongdoing in the eyes of the international community.

The idea of at least there being the possibility to live a luxurious and ostentatious lifestyle through your efforts in life is the proven best motivator. To own that 15 story apartment building or those two SUVs. It's up to the individual to realize after a time there are better ways to spend what you've earned and give back. Not all will. And that's the point of the free will we're given. Some learn. Some don't. Maybe this Marxism may be humanity's saving grace with the sheer number reached. Perhaps it should be tried somewhere. Two questions to ask that I think anyone on the fence about the issue would appreciate any supporter asking. Will citizens be allowed to willingly leave? And will you live as an ordinary citizen with others who you do not know and know nothing about you, including rather especially, that you were for the system beforehand? Enquiring minds would like to know.