Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • Workout Check-In Thread (Last post by MadHatter)
    • Hey all I wish to start working out because I need to drop the weight. My problem is that getting started for me. Its just hard to motivate myself because I dont really like working out and lack transportation most days. Does anyone have advice or work out plans that work from home mostly? Does anyone have advice on getting yourself started despite not really liking the idea.
    • Guns in America (Last post by Ousan Ka)
    • Quote: For, against… no matter which side of the argument we find ourselves coming down on we should consider what drives the other side. :unsure: I have found that most arguments which find people deeply set to one side or the other, fear tends to be the motivating factor. Why don’t people want others to have firearms? They don’t want to risk being shot by another person. Why don’t people want their firearms taken away? They don’t want to be shot by another person. Wait a sec… that sounds like the same reason. :huh: :P :laugh: And each person will argue their side fervently. Who is right and who is wrong? Both, neither and everyone. Each person believes they are right. And that belief is wrong. As the other person would disagree, and does. Hence the pages of arguing. People can quote numbers they found from countless studies and reports trying to convince me the worthiness of their debate. But at the end of the day; gun control is treating the symptom and ignoring the cause. I guess people believe this approach will work because it is how we face the common cold. Get a cold, take an aspirin. But the body is hard at work fighting what you cannot see. And of course people that commit mass shooting will be diagnosed as having some kind of mental issue. We would not consider them “normal” for that behavior. In my opinion, we need to turn our focus away from the rhetoric that is being fed us as a distraction from the main issue… why people feel they can or need to commit acts of violence. Many of these people, and all people that commit acts of violent crimes I would think, do so out of some kind of internal struggle. Hopelessness, despair, feeling powerless and lost in an uncaring and hostile system sometimes the only end they feel they have left to be heard or to make some kind of impact is to act out in a violent crime. Mass shooting, murder, rape, abuse, bullying… these are all things that can, or are at least some times attributed to the afore mentioned states of emotional distress. I honestly believe that if societies have a spiritual center which guides their moral compass and work toward the betterment of the whole (what is good for everyone) then the individuals feeling of hopelessness and despair would subside, not disappear, and the number of violent crimes would decrees. On a side note… I have had firearms in my home for my entire life (a good deal longer than many of you have been alive :P ) and not once has one of them loaded themselves and tried to kill me. A firearm is just a tool. It is the person that needs healing for the hurting to stop. . Yes, the problem is not of too many guns but too many people with emotional distress and no plan to help them. Millions of regular people own guns, never kill anyone with them. It just doesn't seem right to take a right away from the vast majority to ensure that a few disturbed people can't get guns (not that this would really stop that anyway).
    • Justice in the Force (Last post by MrBruno)
    • Hope you get pretty expensive, I think each gave his own explanation with their solutions, but only you will find your answer. Other than that, see that you will freak out, stop everything and go do something you like, forget these questions, get some sleep or work. In the end everything will work out, you are a great person and will find answers to your questions.
    • Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help wo... (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • i dont want to be or seem rude or hostile i have to say that there is a huge disconnect between the lives and thoughts of real actual living men and the STEREOTYPES of what and how men think and act that are being presented in this thread
    • On War & Religion (Last post by OB1Shinobi)
    • Quote: Quote: Also, the assertion that any life has inherent value is false by necessity, since "inherent value" is already something internally inconsistent. Value is an outcome of putting value upon things. It cannot be inherent by definition. Nor does a majority of largely popular religions in our day, and by that I mean religions with any global influence of note, teach that life has inherent value. The value of life they teach is often only as far reaching as the religion's tribe and doesn't extend even as far as to all mankind, and it is also, in most cases, contingent upon either ourselves, a cosmic impersonal justice and morality system, or a countable set of deities. Value and inherency are two incompatible things. 1- i think i elaborated on this in my response but i wanted to add - did you really not understand the basic point i was expressing? i mean, i do respect that it is important to be as precise with our language as possible, but if we are communicating in a friendly and mutually uplifting way, do you really have to pick every damn thing apart to nth degree? its very frustrating discussing topics with you because we get sidetracked on minutia for no better reason than that you find an opportunity to be critical and wont let it pass but maybe that is only my impression and not your intent? 2 - EVERY religion teaches that there is a higher order of existence and that we are a part of that order - that we have a place and a purpose within it - THIS IS OUR VALUE and this is what religion does ---- so you arent going to explain why it is wrong to burn down villages? and your response to that is "NO YOU DO IT!" ? well i think i will say that numerous religion systems have explained this far better than i could do what is this time you speak of "long before religion existed"? i am talking about RELIGION - the phenomena of religion itself and not just some particular religion, such as taoism or jediism im not sure that we can speak of a time "before religion came along" ? my understanding is that the best of our modern thinking has determined that religion existed as far back as human beings can be said to be HUMAN BEINGS in the modern sense
    • Your Inner Council: What is it and how to develop ... (Last post by Loudzoo)
    • This is a great thread - and I like your list! Here are my current 7, in no particular order: George Fox - for original thought and steadfastness in the face of oppression Obi Wan Kenobi - just because . . . Bjorn Lomborg - for effective environmentalism, no matter how unfashionable ( Lao Tzu - for wisdom Thomas Young - the definitive polymath provides inspiration that everything is interesting Valentino Rossi - for bravery, technical acumen, persistence and sense of humour Edgar Mitchell - for pursuing his interests and beliefs in the face of opposition (
    • SW Force Awakens books (Last post by Br. John)
    • I have this one. Aftermath: Star Wars: Journey to The Force Awakens It starts immediately with the end of Return of the Jedi but only covers a short time period - not near the thirty years that have passed. I understand that time period (between VI and VII) will be filled in with more books. There's going to be a single episode comic that tells why C3PO Spoiler: has one red arm now. [attachment]
    • Rants far and wide (Last post by Connor L.)
    • I'm working so hard with so little result... This is slow. Slow is a good teacher, though... I must remember that.
    • From time to time a poem (Last post by elizabeth)
    • If you cut enough times with words do you imagine I will feel your pain? Will the guilt for being a cause of your turmoil close the distance between us? Will it change how I feel? Give me a new perspective? No. It raises defenses and rages, burns out all that was ever there. It furthers the distance until I no longer see. Clouds the reality Destroy everything and when its spent nothing has changed. Except.. Except I no longer wish to try, I have no empathy because, my love Words are hollow and meaningless and like the weapons you choose to wield them as, Sadness and love are passing storms and they destroy not build.
    • UN says Afghan hospital bombing may be war crime (Last post by Avalonslight)
    • One article I read suggested that the location in question was being used by the Taliban as a sort of staging ground / home base / etc for the region, with it being Afghani officials being the ones to say that. [ source ] So let's say that the airstrikes were based on that information. It wouldn't be the first time the Taliban has used an otherwise normally "don't strike" building as a base of operations. They've used mosques and other religious buildings, schools, hospitals, etc in the past. They'll very likely use such "no strike list" buildings in the future. What I want to know is if this is a war crime, then why isn't someone investigating the Russian military for their sudden escalation and airstrikes against Syrian land targets? Is it because they're reportedly just against terrorist training camps? Because if that's the case, then people should be aware that there are just as many civilian and non-combatant individuals in those locations as there were in that Afghani hospital, in the form of hostages, sex slaves, women, children, infants, and the elderly.... What if ISIS were using a hospital as a base, and then Russia conducted an airstrike against that hospital? Would there be the same outrage? Collateral damage, which is the term you're looking for here, happens in every conflict. Innocents are killed; buildings are struck that shouldn't have been struck. And it sucks! The problem is, whatever justification the US military used to decide that an airstrike was the best way to deal with the reported threat, will very likely remain classified past any investigation the Pentagon or UN or NATO or whatever organization you want to name happens to conduct. What information did US officials use? Afghani intelligence? Our own boots on the ground? Local reports? Satellite imagery? What if the information regarding the Taliban being there was wrong? What if it was right? When does the military have the obligation to stand back and allow known militant groups to use what is supposed to a safe haven as a base of operations for spreading their terror and discord? When should they step in? How should they step in? Should they have sent a special forces team in instead of dropping a bomb? Should they have tried to draw these supposed militants out onto the streets? Or should they have ignored it and just let things go as they were supposedly going? When do you decide the pros outweigh the cons? Because quite frankly, I'm not certain anyone is ever going to be able to fully, ethically/morally decide "yes it's ok to strike this location" or "no it's not ok to strike this location", in any form... be it on the ground or from the air. Because there's always going to be some kind of civilian casualty... And to clarify, I am neither condoning nor condemning the actions that were taken... Because honestly, I don't have the intel to understand the reasoning behind it. I'm just presenting a bare basic example of the many levels of consideration that had to be made in order for a strike to even be ordered in the first place.

There are 809 visitors, 5 guests and 26 members online (one in chat): Sirius, Br. John, Sarus, Grom Fett, steamboat28, ren, Adder, Star Forge, Luthien, isisinabi, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, Kamizu, Calanon, Cristris_Jons, SeventhSL, Slebo, Loudzoo, *BuntuBob, Plasmawiz, Tellahane, Corsair Gorscue, Mikhael, Morkhen, Ellipses, obiwankenokie, MadHatter, Raven Crest, Ori, Mara Sol.

Follow Us