Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:18 pm
There are still things and methods to the way things are taught in all of our schools that can't be exported, and those years are vital for how people are going to wind up.
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
I have absolutely no idea what this means. Can you clarify what you mean, please?Katy wrote:There are still things and methods to the way things are taught in all of our schools that can't be exported, and those years are vital for how people are going to wind up.
It means that there is a curriculum that is used in America that teaches small children certain things that are a part of our national psychology. Things such as "America is good" "America must look out for evil people and protect citizens from evil" "The government is good" - they aren't overtly taught, but which things are emphasized (especially from K-3rd grade) are vitally important, and for the most part don't change around the country. This is becoming even more true with legislation like No Child Left Behind which enforces standardized testing.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I have absolutely no idea what this means. Can you clarify what you mean, please?Katy wrote:There are still things and methods to the way things are taught in all of our schools that can't be exported, and those years are vital for how people are going to wind up.
.
Contrary to popular opinion, might doesn't make right. Nature does allow us to impose our will upon others - at mankind's own demise! It's up to each of us to choose whether to do the right thing or the wrong thing.Actually, Natural rights do exist. It's what we're able to do when other people aren't imposing their will upon us.
I'm sure you've noticed this: nature allows people to impose their will upon others. You are part of the US military aren't you? Might makes right. I like the wording of this quote from Max Stirner "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." Although it probably doesn't match the original meaning, Crowley's Law of Thelema can be re-interpreted in the same spirit "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
Yes, sometimes that is the case. But a lot of the time, it's good that we are "sticking our noses" in the affairs of other countries. It's about doing the right thing.Of course, the most offensive implication here (underlying your god-given right to bear arms) is that the US has the right to stick their noses into the domestic affairs of other countries, yet when the international eye turns on them, they cry foul with such bone-headed paranoia as this.
What are you blathering about? I didn't see a point anywhere in that. Sarcasm doesn't read well over the internet.Naturally, when the US decides that “democracy†is the order of the day in Iraq so much so that military intervention is justified, this comes from a well-informed and educated public who has democratically elected its government to do so; not from any encouragement of WIDESPREAD UNCONSCIOUS HATRED FOR THE MIDDLE EAST. This is not interference in the domestic affairs of one country by another. It must be another one of those god-given American rights.
I don't see any comparison between Shizlam and guns in the US. Your argument makes no sense.We are allowed to condemn religion in the Middle East, ascribing all sorts of crimes against its citizens to it and taking the initiative to bring about order on that basis because “the US†says so, but when we shine that same light on the States’ gun crime and how the right to bear arms might affect it, for example, we’re impinging on someone’s god-given right to bear arms because they might be terrorised and, therefore, need to plan for the worst.
Read what I wrote to Jason, and apply it.How does that Christian god-given, natural right work, again?
Unconsciousness, mass hysteria, and herdlike mentality.Do tell, what exactly are the causes of this widespread, unconscious hatred for America?
This is non-sequitur and without the paragraph I wrote after it, makes no sense at all. It is a blatant example of the unconscious, hatred-filled American mind set attempting to justify itself; attempting to redirect an accurate spotlight on it by trying to undermine the accuser. You are a liar (not that you‘d know it), Scott--and not a very good one at that! You know, the kind of liar that’s been reserved for women: the kind of liar who is incapable of lying because the very “truths†they hold are themselves unconscious.L: Of course, the most offensive implication here (underlying your god-given right to bear arms) is that the US has the right to stick their noses into the domestic affairs of other countries, yet when the international eye turns on them, they cry foul with such bone-headed paranoia as this.
S: Yes, sometimes that is the case. But a lot of the time, it's good that we are "sticking our noses" in the affairs of other countries. It's about doing the right thing.
Oh, really? Sometimes what is the case? (Given your accusations of my lack of clarity, I have to wonder on what grounds you should be held a shining example of it.) This comment only makes sense when you consider my reply as a whole; it only makes sense when you consider the content of my next two paragraphs and the implication in the (“non-sensicalâ€) sarcasm (that you didn’t understand, apparently) that the US has fucked up. You’re just trying to sound clever, and out of your desperation to justify that which is unconsciously motivated in you, you’re failing. Of course, only those who are conscious will see it.Yes, sometimes that is the case.
Irrelevant to the point being made. Not completely useless, however. I may address it later.But a lot of the time, it's good that we are "sticking our noses" in the affairs of other countries.
I hardly think you can accurately determine right from wrong if you can’t even address the point of a simple paragraph correctly. Your emotionalism is what guides you, despite the fact that you try to assume a cool exterior. So, I’m not about to let you decide what’s right or wrong on my behalf, thanks!It's about doing the right thing.
Really? I don't see how it makes no sense. You said America is sticking their noses in the domestic affairs of other countries, and I admitted that sometimes that may be true but a lot of the time it's necessary and good. What doesn't make sense about that?This is non-sequitur and without the paragraph I wrote after it, makes no sense at all.
Wow, what?It is a blatant example of the unconscious, hatred-filled American mind set attempting to justify itself; attempting to redirect an accurate spotlight on it by trying to undermine the accuser. You are a liar (not that you‘d know it), Scott--and not a very good one at that! You know, the kind of liar that’s been reserved for women: the kind of liar who is incapable of lying because the very “truths†they hold are themselves unconscious.
Please do.Let me elaborate further, just so its abundantly clear.
Okay, first of all, if you want to clarify something don't use run on sentences with parenthesis. It's fucking confusing. Your elaboration has not been clear at all for me.I speak about the implication in your statement that the US has this unquestionable right to involve themselves in the domestic affairs of other countries but will not afford that same right to any other country or individual (since I know that if an American were to say the same thing as I, you would object with equal stupidity). On that basis, I conclude that the statement was nothing but bone-headed paranoia. And what do you do? Let’s see:
Quote:
Yes, sometimes that is the case.
Oh, really? Sometimes what is the case? (Given your accusations of my lack of clarity, I have to wonder on what grounds you should be held a shining example of it.) This comment only makes sense when you consider my reply as a whole; it only makes sense when you consider the content of my next two paragraphs and the implication in the (“non-sensicalâ€) sarcasm (that you didn’t understand, apparently) that the US has fucked up.
Okay, whatever. I suppose you also believe anyone that doesn't see it is unconscious, and for some reason, you consider yourself to be right.You’re just trying to sound clever, and out of your desperation to justify that which is unconsciously motivated in you, you’re failing. Of course, only those who are conscious will see it.
Your point was that America isn't questioned when it involves itself in the affairs of other countries. My point was that there's not much to question, because usually when America does involve itself, it's for a good reason.Irrelevant to the point being made.
I hardly think you are capable of determining anything about me, seeing as how you didn't understand what I was talking about in regards to your first paragraph.I hardly think you can accurately determine right from wrong if you can’t even address the point of a simple paragraph correctly.
???Your emotionalism is what guides you, despite the fact that you try to assume a cool exterior.
I wasn't trying to. Australia doesn't concern me, so I don't try to involve myself in the domestic affairs of the country.So, I’m not about to let you decide what’s right or wrong on my behalf, thanks!
Yeah, I understood that was your point. Do you really need for me to lead you through the thought it takes to get to my point?The main point of my first paragraph (which you completely ignored due to your stupidity--aka, unconscious reaction) is this: the US has no more grounds to interfere in the internal politics of another country than any other country has to interfere in theirs.
I did in my previous reply.Would you care to actually address the point?
If it's so idiotic, leave it alone. If you choose not to, then be kind. I wasn't calling you a bitch or anything...yet. So what's with this harsh attitude for no reason? Do you actually think that will make an impact? It's like a person shouting in your ear...it's hard to pay attention to what they're actually saying.And that's only the first few lines of your idiotic post.
Point out the ignorance. If you find yourself unable to, then you're only acting this way because you disagree strongly with my views.I have to prepare for work now. However, since I very much care about others, I will return as soon as I can to address the rest of your post and expose it for the sheer ignorance that it is. But here’s a hint for you, personally, Scott: if you don’t get what I’m saying, it isn’t because I am “probably stupid.†I say, with absolute fucking certainty, that I run rings around you in every intellectual, abstract and applied, endeavour. Don’t you be fooled by your ignorant self that doesn’t exist for one second, mate!
What does this mean? Does this mean that one must have testicles to insult someone? I doubt it means that only women without testicles make accusations of emotionalism, or should I dig up some posts by people who one might assume have testicles where they made accusations of emotionalism as well? (Please) pardon the (run-on) sentence.sschaula wrote:It's so funny how women lob these insults around here, as if they had a pair of testicles.
Would that include the women with testicles, or just the women without testicles? By David's definition all women are nuts, whether or not they have nuts - and not having nuts does not mean being nuts, but it looks like by Kevin's definition, one either has nuts or is nuts. How are you defining "women" here Scott?sschaula wrote:It just means that the women who frequent this forum are nuts, in my opinion.
Aw, man - the only idea worse than a popularity contest is a pig party.Jamesh wrote:Lets all post our list of the most nutty to the least nutty.
Kelly Jones wrote:I've decided that Americans against gun violence should rename themselves explicitly as anti-gun groups.
-tomas-
Still adding gravel to your box of rocks?
-dummy further comments-
This includes renaming the largest membership group as a National Anti-Gun Lobby.
-tomas-
Ho-hum.
-dumbo adds-
This is quite amazing, since the National Rifle Association's "Institute for Legislative Action" already lists all these groups as Anti-Gun Lobbies!
-tomas-
Suicidal alcoholic!!
-dumbest of the dummies drivels-
They should bite the bullet.
You can click [
-hershey hocker spouts-
Until there is a solid, national agreement and determination to make gun ownership highly restrictive, Americans won't be as capable of thinking and speaking truthfully.
-tomas-
god, you are beyond dumb, borderline stupid.
-
Interesting advice. I guess, as an American, you don’t have to take it, eh?If it's so idiotic, leave it alone. If you choose not to, then be kind. I wasn't calling you a bitch or anything...yet. So what's with this harsh attitude for no reason? Do you actually think that will make an impact? It's like a person shouting in your ear...it's hard to pay attention to what they're actually saying.
So fucking chill out.
Until there is a solid, national agreement and determination to make gun ownership highly restrictive, Americans won't be as capable of thinking and speaking truthfully.
I guess Kelly couldn't possibly have had a "good reason" to question America's right to bear arms.1) You're in Australia. Why are you stepping out of bounds? Stay the fuck out of our politics, please.
2) There's a reason they don't all band together. It's because they're morons.
3) It's funny how you assume that a thinking society should prevent the freedom of thought of its inhabitants. How backwards.
[Scott]…there will be more attacks on US soil in the coming years, all because of this widespread unconscious hatred for America. And who will be there to protect us?
Do I really have to lead you through every thought it takes to get to my point?[Leyla] Of course, the most offensive implication here (underlying your god-given right to bear arms) is that the US has the right to stick their noses into the domestic affairs of other countries, yet when the international eye turns on them, they cry foul with such bone-headed paranoia as this.
Yeah, I thought so.Wow, what?
You really think that those things are not “exported†in the manner Dan implies?Dan: I feel inclined to question that. I doubt that any individual American without significant practical experience of their own country can sensibly assess the psyche of American people any better than those in nations literally awash with American culture, news and political influence. Australia is such a nation.
Katy: There are still things and methods to the way things are taught in all of our schools that can't be exported [such as Things such as "America is good" "America must look out for evil people and protect citizens from evil" "The government is good" - they aren't overtly taught, but which things are emphasized (especially from K-3rd grade) are vitally important, and for the most part don't change around the country], and those years are vital for how people are going to wind up.
I didn't make a comparison. I commented on a direct connection you made:I don't see any comparison between Shizlam and guns in the US. Your argument makes no sense.
Unless, that is, you consider the whole world to be nothing more than unconscious, hateful, anti-American terrorists that have infiltrated your country? Your comment, though insane, would at least make sense in that context.But in case you haven't noticed, there's a war with terrorism going on right now, and the US is taking the heat. Just the other day 6 people were arrested in a plot to sneak into a military base and kill as many soldiers as they could. It's much better if people have weapons to be able to stop this kind of thing. If they don't, they stand helpless against these guys. Just wait and see...there will be more attacks on US soil in the coming years, all because of this widespread unconscious hatred for America. And who will be there to protect us? The police, who are busy writing speeding tickets? The National Guard, who is in Iraq or else can't be called up immediately?
I am not talking about popculture. I'm specifically talking about what do teachers say to 5 year olds. Out loud. Probably never really reproduced consciously because they're repeating what they were told at that age.Leyla Shen wrote: You really think that those things are not “exported†in the manner Dan implies?
Wow. You must be joking.
Ditto. All I ever learned about Australia in school was that it was a British penal colony back when Britain ruled the world, but Britain was so spread out that it was not able to keep up with all its territories so it lost control of everything but Britain itself. They kind of made it sound like y'all were just a bunch of criminals anyway, so they gave up on you because you were too much trouble. They kind of made it sound like a third world nation, so I was kind of surprised when I learned Australia had electricity.Katy wrote:One example is that I assume that Australia exists in your curriculum. It doesn't here. Really, other than memorizing the continents as a child, it sorta disappears. I remember a few months back I had a conversation with Sue in which she said something like "well, surely you read about us in WW1?" Nope.
Was that a conclusion? I thought it was an assertion, since she hadn't said anything to back it up.Leyla Shen wrote:
Kelly’s conclusion in her opening post:
Until there is a solid, national agreement and determination to make gun ownership highly restrictive, Americans won't be as capable of thinking and speaking truthfully.
Don't think I was ever told even that much about Australia in school. I might have been able to tell you it was a big island somewhere, and that it had something to do with boomarangs and kangaroos, but that would probably be based on that cartoon involving cats fighting kangaroos, not actual school class time.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Ditto. All I ever learned about Australia in school was that it was a British penal colony back when Britain ruled the world, but Britain was so spread out that it was not able to keep up with all its territories so it lost control of everything but Britain itself. They kind of made it sound like y'all were just a bunch of criminals anyway, so they gave up on you because you were too much trouble. They kind of made it sound like a third world nation, so I was kind of surprised when I learned Australia had electricity.
Yeah - I learned where Tasmania was because of the Tasmanian devil on Bugs Bunny. I didn't know Tasmania was part of Australia until much later though.DHodges wrote:Don't think I was ever told even that much about Australia in school. I might have been able to tell you it was a big island somewhere, and that it had something to do with boomarangs and kangaroos, but that would probably be based on that cartoon involving cats fighting kangaroos, not actual school class time.
Right, then. For a personal pardon and absolution for Kelly, I’ll trade you a whole kangaroo, 12 boomerangs and the following rephrase:Was that a conclusion? I thought it was an assertion, since she hadn't said anything to back it up.