defacto7
defacto7's JournalHow can a locust swarm
that's a regularly occurring 6 to 20 years phenomenon be stopped? I've never heard of it. They are both a natural occurrence and a consequence of bad land management.
Madagascar is one of the most beautiful and most damaged places on the planet. Our closest living primate ancestor lives on that island probably blown there in a hurricane eons ago.. the Lemur.
It's a terrible thing when a natural phenomenon gets out of control because of human mistakes, but trying to stop a swarm of locusts conjures up many more stupid mistakes like spraying untold numbers of acres of land with insecticide.
The other thing is relating it to a plague like in biblical terms is not helpful to understanding reality. Many take it seriously and do strange and wicked things to appease some god. The locusts don't damage the earth more the humans do and unfortunately we have to look for a way to balance that Eco system not continue the same practices that are far worse than some bugs do.
Global male violence is an outrage
and I will no longer stand for it. I have been fighting that fight in my own little world for decades. I do agree.
Where I do not agree is that a simple fallacy cannot be corrected without a large contingency appearing in many venues to derail their own threads for the purpose of stopping voices from speaking, then projecting the derailment.
You say, "If you don't try to stop those things, then you are part of the problem." That can also be interpreted as trying to stop the the whiplash effect when an atrocity or unfair condition occurs by not falling silent when an affected side demands it. It's the common fallacy of "two wrongs make a right". They do not.
We must not alienate our supporters because part of them happen to be blank . If we cannot hold up humankind as a single commonality that we have, together, all of us, then we fail to understand the atrocities we share and will never be able to stop them for lack of unity and understanding.
You have posed a very respectful honest question.
and that is all it takes. Respectful honest questions receiving respectful honest answers. That's the nutshell of it.
Now for the reality of it:
Most atheists have radar for logical or simple fallacies or they should. If an answer to a religious or philosophical question arises and it is purely illogical or a simple fallacy, atheists are likely to challenge it. Challenging beliefs with logical corrections is not something theists are comfortable with, but to an atheist or any skeptic logic and facts are what makes the universe what it is and so far it has never failed. Yes, logical conclusions at one time or another have failed, but not having faith to bind us to preserving a dogma, an atheist, a scientist, or skeptic can evolve with the change in facts and observations; the non-believer can change his mind and as a matter of fact, we are compelled to do so. We cannot hold on to an idea that has been found factually false or without evidential merit. The faith of a believer must not have fact or evidence by definition.
This alone creates a chasm that is very hard to bridge. When atheists challenge faiths, it is tantamount to heresy to the faithful. When believers challenge facts or propose acceptance of lack of evidence, it's only an argument to be challenged to an atheist. No believer in a faith wants to be corrected by facts because in doing so it nullifies their faith therefore they have to do everything in their power to destroy the facts and the fact provider even to the point of ad hominem or straw man tactics and that just won't fly with a non-theist. See my signature.
Being atheist I have no problem listening to the story of a person's faith or belief. Personally, I can just listen and not challenge it. But in an open forum there are other non-believers who will challenge it. It's not an attack, it's an open forum and people say what they need to say. There's the believer's point of view which must be unchangeable and acceptable under the banner of a deity, and there's the non-believer's point of view that cannot accept faith, I.E. beliefs without tangible evidence. If both sides can offer their positions without feeling insulted or have the need to make personal attacks on the other, I think we would get along fine. But as long as there is offense at being wrong, either side, then there will always be a problem.
Speaking for myself, I thrive on being wrong and I think most mature atheists feel the same. If I am logically incorrect I am happy to have been corrected because I can move on with new information that is better than what I had before. THAT is the atheist's path. If there is a God de facto, I will be compelled to change my position and become... not a believer, but knower and live in the knowledge and fact of a tangible God.
D7
Dreaming of Guillotines and lynch mobs
I feel the sentiment and the anger in the discussions of revolution and retribution against the 1%, I understand it and share it. Some are serious, some are half serious, and some just joke along, but one way or another, things are going to break.... If the scenario of seek and destroy is the outcome I wouldn't expect the return of America the beautiful anytime in the next century.
Unfortunately, we have to conclude that the .1% are wealthy enough to run. They will exchange their monetary wealth for real property, commodities and hard assets which they will take with them. The reality is, only the middle wealth will take the heat and the masses will simply fight among themselves until it gets so bad that someone calling him/herself a political saint, a savior, a prophet, a god, a Stalin, a Hitler, Satan, even Jesus will emerge, the tired masses will run at anything that looks like hope, those of faith will have delusions of the end of times...
and the wheel goes round and round and round and.....
We had better find more practical solutions, but don't ask me what the solutions are. I don't know.
On the surface
it's good news.
When it comes to the part that seems to slide by most people, the part about money spent for a political positions, the part we seem to take for granted without thinking about the overall ramifications, none of it is good news.
Now that we know where the money comes from.... There are questions (rhetorical or not).
Q:
-Where does this money go that is spent to defend out position?
-Where does the money go that is spent to defend our constitutional rights?
-Who receives the millions upon millions of dollars that we the people, or the oligarchs, or the corporations, spend to get the results demanded?
- WHY does it cost more than cab fare to be heard?
- WHY are tens even hundreds of millions of dollars spent for what should be FREE speech? FREE opinion? The FREE will of the people?
THIS is the important issue; it's not that we have the honor of spending more than our antagonists, it's not that we were able to buy the winning lottery ticket that buys us the bingo ball that may or may not give us what is our right as citizens to begin with, it's that we have to pay anything at all.
When We the People have to buy a chance to be heard, we are blithely writing democracy's obituary. The United States that was envisioned and fought for by our ancestors is being dropped into the dustbin of history.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
.............................. and now a word from our sponsor.....................
Persecution is everywhere
and produced by almost every dogmatic institution. "Christian" in this context is a device and doesn't represent the vastness of the problem of persecution in humanity either historic or modern. In the end, it's pity by exclusion.
Profile Information
Name: Defacto7Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Portland, OR
Home country: not sure anymore
Current location: depends on which proxy I'm using
Member since: Wed Aug 1, 2012, 01:44 AM
Number of posts: 13,485
