I used to think drugs were for the weak but now I realize the cruel irony is they are just to get by... This song comes to mind, I listen to it everyday... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqmRDV0a_70
I used to think drugs were for the weak but now I realize the cruel irony is they are just to get by... This song comes to mind, I listen to it everyday... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqmRDV0a_70
If you've lost someone recently this may or may not help you I'm not sure... It made me cry and I'm not even religious. When he says 10,000 days in the fire is long enough he is referring to the amount of days his mom was paralyzed for roughly...
Last edited by ITZ DENI3D; 05-08-2012 at 08:59 AM.
This is the reason I deleted my original post. I dont want to detract from the mostly meaning and intelligent discussions with my generally ill thought out posts.
I know nothing about you, but you come across as very troubled. I hope you can find help/peace in life, but adding drugs to an already troubled life is recipe for disaster.
Probably the last i'll post on the matter.
i think responsible drug use presumes that it is done for the purpose of recreation, experience, and fun, not in order to enhance your ability in specific contexts or to combat your unhappiness and psychological problems. that is also why i am quite critical of prescription drugs. being dependent on a substance in order to live a normal life is a terrible thing.
many responsible drug users will probably argue that other drugs are not spiritual. i understand what they mean. stimulants and depressants enhance or inhibit your bodily functions respectively, they usually do not give you any experiences outside the usual way of perceiving the world. but i myself define any substance that alters the way you think and feel as spiritual. i find it quite interesting that human experience can also be an alcohol or cocaine experience, two ways of looking at life that are very different from the usual way.
I understand your point. I felt Zefelius was doing a fine job of rebutting that train of thought, no need for me to address that angle so I took a different angle.
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-08-2012 at 11:29 AM.
While I think everyone's pain & joy is ultimately their own alone & can't be shared or empathized with fully, my reasons for enduring pain in my own life are due to the life of Jesus Christ & the joy He gives me now despite my pain & failure. I believe He is God, took the pain & shame of everyone's shortcomings, & lived the most noble human life of example possible as a result. This example requires that enduring pain while pursuing virtue in all its forms is a required discipline for any & all Christians. Yes, I'm well aware of the acute minority of that opinion from all angles, both personal & corporate, but it does not make it less true doctrinally from the standpoint of what Jesus Christ expects of Christians. This can not be done through physical or intellectual effort alone, it is an intrinsically spiritual endeavor empowered by Christ Himself & why Christ said one must be born again to have life in Christ. It is a distinct spiritual experience given by Jesus Christ.
Anyhow, that's my personal answer to your line of questioning.
thanks & best regards,
unless you believe that the american race stems from a super fast evolution of north american monkeys i would suggest that the united states is an european culture, influenced by various european ethnicities, perhaps especially english, irish, and german, but also the unique african-american culture. american culture has evolved from the european one and is still very similar. american culture started with european culture. then we had the enlightment together and now we are the masters of the economic system that now rules the world.If you don't agree with this interpretation of the broad facts of the historical timeline, what do you propose as the cultural genesis for the USA?
besides, you compare a single country with a religion even though you have many times claimed that the fundamentalism and culture in the muslim world stems from islam, not other cultural elements. so why do you not compare christianity with the islam? christianity started 600 years before the islam and it took american ancestors more than a thousand years to establish a nation which then gradually adopted rights for women. in terms of time, the islam can still develop such rights faster than christianity.
what i wished to express is that we cannot just expect the muslim world to change based on our parameters since we didn't. it cost us tremendous resources, one of which may has been time.You emphasized time in the posting I responded to. The same factors you mention affect everyone. The issue is understanding the "why", not the "what". Corruption destroys civilizations from within. It also self-propagates & impedes virtuous endeavors.
furthermore, the credit is due to those who actually turned the tide for women, not you and me who were simply born into the system and for whom gender equality is a matter of course. when gender inequality is institutionalized and seen as natural in your society it takes a lot of painful effort to change that as our own feminists, female and male, have shown. also, when you struggle economically it probably won't be your first priority to protest politically, especially when this means risking your life or your familiy's safety.
as we've covered before it seems to me that western values are more dominant in some regions in turkey and less in others. for example, it wouldn't surprise me if gender equality was greater in istanbul than it is in jerusalem, a city partially fundamentalist where homosexuals are lynched and women, in some areas, are publicly required to sit in the back of the bus unless they wish to be beaten or verbally abused.On the issue of gender-equality, Turkey is better than most Islamic countries, this is true. However, if you want to actually compare Turkey to the USA and/or Western European countries in a more sweeping sense, you'll need to be more specific & provide the data to establish the justification for the term "many ways". On the topic of religious diversity, Turkey is not even close to the USA. Whatever one's belief system is, this is a critical attribute for any society, arguably the most critical as it concerns the sanctity of personal & internal beliefs & one's freedom to practice them in practical safety (not legalistic safety). This religious diversity & practical safety does not exist in Turkey. I personally know 2 people who were murdered in their offices in front of their families within the last 2 years. The murderers were not charged despite being already identified.
similarly, indonesia is a relatively moderate muslim country. religious freedom is limited while religious equality seems somewhat secured. you must believe in some god. anyway, i suppose this is a lot more than you can expect from a majority of f*ucked up african christian countries which scare me no less than saudi arabia or pakistan.
something which you and zef fail to see is that there can be fundamentally different conceptions of what sexism is which consequently results in different conceptions of what obvious sexism is. to say it provocatively, you are cultural totalitarianists. i don't say that entirely pejoratively because i think we should assert our own values. i just want you to see the other side, put yourself in the position of someone with a totally different mindset than your own, and stop inappropriately demanding behavior of other people based on what you deem good behavior.
however, until recently i found striking the fact that western values are more widespread in areas that do well economically, including human rights values and the like. china may pose a threat to that picture though.Fair enough. We've already discussed that economics, while important, can not be demonstratively shown to cause terrorism.
in regard to other nations i find it less fundamentalist, less brutal, less unfair. for example, in regard to many african nations, south-east asian nations where traditional asian cultures are dominant, and muslim nations such as saudi arabia, pakistan, or iraq.What exactly do you mean by the terms "relatively moderate"? It seems to be to ring of the same tenor as someone remarking in an interview "Let me be totally honest...". In other words, it's a subtle form of compensation for something else that lurks in the shadows that counteracts/undermines the presented language.
i wish this article was in english. i doubt that anything like this is written in mainstream american media. it argues that all atomic powers, such as the US, israel, france or pakistan, are seen as legitimately defending themselves with their WMDs by using them as deterrence. only iran is made out to be the irrational madman who would use it for attacking. contrarily, iran behaves completely rational. even though you might detest the strategy of atomic weaponry, it behaves like any other state by trying to expand its power. all the propaganda about iran, the article claims, is a part of a plan to attack iran.
now, i am not so sure about that last sentence. so far it doesn't look that likely to me that the US would attack and that israel would do it without the US but otherwise i fully agree.
i don't think there's any argument for the claim that terrorists might obtain those nuclear weapons. why would they? obviously, WMDs will be heavily guarded, just like it is the case in other countries in possession of these. if your claim is based on islamophobia or simply a lack of trust of poorer nations look to pakistan or north korea.
there are many risks attacking iran. the economic and humanitarian costs would probably be gargantuan with perhaps little chance of success as many sources suggest. continue the economic isolation of iran. it's already making an impact.
i think the reasons for going crazy over iran are geopolitical. the west doesn't want iran to have more influence in the region and parts of israel are probably honestly scared which is understandable. but the double standard of the west and israel is so large you can almost touch it. nobody gave a crap when israel without permission built its own much larger arsenal of nuclear weaponry. now iran, geopolitcally and defensively also understandably, wants to do exactly the same and it's a huge disaster. a number of declarations by iranian officials of seeking to annihilate israel should not be enough to justify a hugely expensive war, especially since many experts have recently come up to say that it's doubtful whether iran truly intends to build or is capable of building those weapons.
i find the 3D printers quite remarkable as well (the zeitgeist movement also talks about these). at first i am mostly skeptical about such things because people seem to get really sensationalist about terrific sounding future technology but this one seems to be for real. it's quite incredible.
one basic issue down there is that the west and israel are suppressing the region economically, morally and indirectly militarily. israel doesn't need to invade those countries, it already profits from the enslavement of them and it does this by force in conjunction with western powers.
i said that the nuclear powers can't really legitimately complain about iran getting nukes, yes. you guaranteeing me something like that means nothing because it's an unfounded statement. where is the basis for such a claim? why haven't pakistani or north koran terrorists used nuclear bombs?Regardless, you feel it is worth the risk to give them nukes? That is completely insane. I guarantee you if they get them either they or a terrorist organization will use them. Then what will you say? Ohh we should have regulated it better or some other bull crap? I can't believe you would be willing put millions of lines on the line for your ideology... Yes we have nukes, but we have disassembled a lot of them. Also, notice how none of them were used? Eventually I think we will do away with them all together, but in the meantime giving nukes to some out of control 2nd world country is ludicrous.
imagine you were from iran. now, is it us who have to feel threatened or is it them? we have all the arsenal and israel uses its own to have control over the region. in terms of politics, it makes a lot of sense for iran to have nuclear weapons of their own.
according to you the only sane option is to intervene militarily. it seems as if most of the important officials disagree with you, some of whom are from israel such as the chief of its military. i don't think it will happen.
I agree that success depends on a lot of factors. Although what the author suggests is seemingly provocative, by saying "intelligence is overrated," he adds caveats which actually translate his overall position into a common sense kind of view: "It doesn’t matter if you did not receive the best academic training from a top university. A person with less education who has fully developed their EQ, MQ, and BQ can be far more successful than a person with an impressive education who falls short in these other categories." Notice how the frst sentence is feisty. But the caveat which comes at the tail end of the second sentence simply reminds us that people who are intelligent but lacking significantly in other areas aren't going to do too well in life. The implication at that point reminds us that an impressive education is actually very important when other variables are held constant.
"Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, and have refused to rule out a pre-emptive strike to prevent it from happening."
That 'something' is and always will be the U.S.A. Who needs nuclear weapons when you have the biggest superpower in the world (nuclear weapons included) backing you up?something to get them to back off, and the only thing that made them was Israel having nukes
How is Iran having nukes a threat to anybody? If they use them, they get vaporized. They will never use them, they simply want the deterrence like everybody else. That is the whole idea behind nuclear doctrine.
The only real argument is that terrorists might get their hands on them. Which is moot because you can't back it up at all. As you say, there are russian nukes that are unaccounted for and I don't see anybody attacking russia. "Because they have a nuclear deterrent" you say? EXACTLY. That's the situation Iran wants to be in and I don't blame them.
Last edited by ITZ DENI3D; 05-10-2012 at 06:51 AM.
i think there is a reasonable pragmatic argument about safety for the iranian standpoint. they are are powerless in the region with israel and the US present and if they overstep their boundaries they will get reactions. that is a clear power relationship in which israel has it all. the status quo of iranians and many other people down there is already unacceptable as israel and the west are also sucking up all resources. of course, nuclear weapons for themselves would give them a leg to stand on.
you are arguing from a western point of view.
in more idealistic terms, the real danger stems from all actual nuclear powers. let them get rid of their own WMDs and their demands wouldn't seem to hypocritical anymore.
you've said that before but you still haven't presented any evidence.But I don't think it would be to hard for a terrorist organization to obtain the bombs in that country, and if they did I don't think there is any doubt about what they would plan to do with them...
it doesn't prove it but what evidence is there to the contrary? western media saying iran is irrational. anyway, if you actually look at iranian behavior it seems quite rational.In your article the Israel leaders said that they sounded "very rational" because they had “not yet decided to manufacture atomic weapons”. That doesn't prove anything about how rational they are.
well, jews immigrated to palestine and expelled palestinians from their land. i think in terms of politics countries have invaded others for much worse reasons, especially when traditionalist religion is a variable.I'm pretty sure that the Muslim nations around Israel started attacking them first and seeing how they are so highly out numbered they needed something to get them to back off, and the only thing that made them was Israel having nukes.
i'm sure that's one reason why israel tries to be the most powerful force in the region, partially by having WMDs, but that doesn't make their standpoint more valid than the surrounding muslim nations' which is mostly, i think, a demand for more justice, a demand for a fair treatment of palestinians, and probably all amplified by a huge inferiority complex.
how would you feel if chinese people immigrated in mass numbers to southern california, then at some point established the country of "little china" there, expelled most americans, and by superior force defended that region against all attempts to take it back? you'd probably feel much like one of those muslims.
military force is not the only variable. iran has not been attacked. those people are f*cked because of western and israeli predominance. but they can't do anything about it because these powers are upholding that dominance by military and economic force. if they try to do something they'll be confronted with immediate action. for example, when they're trying to have some WMDs of their own in order to balance powers a bit they risk war against those vastly superior forces.Once Iran starts getting ganged up on by all of their neighboring countries then I think they should have nukes only as a deterrent, but until then they need to stop trying to obtain them or else they know what will happen, as stated in your article.
have you also considered the risks of intervening militarily? it would be extremely expensive. the chances of success would be limited. human costs would probably be rather great.
would you yourself go down there, risk your health and life for such an unsure cause?
I'm still reading that Talbott scholar, btw. It's interesting how we have been discussing rights and cultural relativism in this thread at the exact time as I'm reading him on the same issues. He contends that the cultural imperialism argument is incoherent. It's the argument, as you know, which objects to one culture (especially with the Western powers) assuming its values are the only valid ones compared to the mistaken ones of other cultures. One conclusion of this argument is extreme moral relativism. Ultimately, it becomes objectionable to criticize the norms of any other social group. But Talbott responds that this is an incoherent view since it undercuts the earlier insight that Western powers have been wrongfully imperialistic in their historical oppression of various races, tribes, and colonies: "So the argument undermines the very insight that motivated it. If you believe the cultural imperialism of the Western European colonizers really was wrong, you should not be an extreme cultural relativist" (WRSBU, 42).
In response you could probably say, as a cultural relativist, that there is no right or wrong and thus you don't believe that cultural imperialism is wrong either. But it seems that once you judge any society in somewhat moral terms, you will then have the basis for doing so in reference to other societies---lest you undermine evaluative judgement altogether.
if it is unfortunate - and if there is lets say a certain chance of a negitive outcome as a result (eg a nuclear war) that causes loss of life, what is the net expected loss of life due to iran getting nukes. And if we can determine this to be - maybe 10,000 lives or 1,000,000 lives how much effort should we put into stopping it?
Im also not sure about your "reasonable pragmatic argument". In theory israel is powerful and iran is less powerful in the region, or more precisely the elite in israel are powerful and the elite in Iran are slightly less powerful on an international scale... but it isnt reasonable and pragmatic to try to remedy that with nukes except as a way of proping up the iranian elite vis vs the iranian people.
Iran doesnt need to deter an invasion or some sort of fire bombing of its cities by israel, worst case israel sends a missile to hit a nuclear plant, annoying indeed but still like an isolated terrorist event and nuking Israel's capital would be a insane over reaction and result in the loss of all of irans major cities. Otherwise having a nuke isn't worth having even fairly moderate deterant, probably not even worth the cost of the actual nuclear project itself.
It doesnt seem to me like a elite who whould get a nuke for iran in the current environment would be the same sort of person that would get rid of it on the basis of avoiding hypocricy. I suspect your very expectation that they care that much about hipocrisy is pretty western centric.in more idealistic terms, the real danger stems from all actual nuclear powers. let them get rid of their own WMDs and their demands wouldn't seem to hypocritical anymore.