The aliens have showed me the agenda, the tourting of the human soul

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

evil is only what you percieve to be wrong which in itself does not make it wrong.

Say that to the parents of the children raped by paedohiles.

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

evil is only what you percieve to be wrong which in itself does not make it wrong.

Say that to the parents of the children raped by paedohiles.

Say that to the parents of the paedophile raped in prison.

There is no such thing as evil to the perspective of the universe - because the universe just is. It is nihilistic. There is only action and reaction, more or less. However, we are not nihilistic creatures - and we seek to give meaning to things. We are, more or less, altruistic creatures - but altruism does not define morality or a perspective on good or evil. That is left to culture and society, and it should be noted that there are certain crimes that are almost universally seen as a detriment to society and therefore labeled as evil or otherwise shunned.


However, it should be noted that it's hardwired into our brains to care for and protect children and babies. So at least in case of pedophilia - you're right in that there's an objective biological and evolutionary pressure independent of culture that makes pedophilia so distasteful and evil. However this can be overlooked culturally as the Romans oft-times did, or it can be reinforced by empathy towards the child and a distaste for anyone who forces their sexual gratification on others against their will.

I personally don't have much sympathy for pedophiles. You can't really help what fetishes you're born with or develop... I understand... but you can control your own actions, and you can keep it in the realm of personal fantasy. I don't blame someone for being a pedophile, but I do hold them accountable for their actions. Once you take that step over... be it buying images/movies that promote others to molest for a product or actual molestation... you forfeit your humanity IMO, and I can only hope you get caught and dealt with appropriately... not by the justice system, but by your fellow inmates. As I understand it, even in a den of murderers, thieves, and drug addicts - child molesters are the lowest of the low - and treated/beaten appropriately.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Lasheic]

Originally posted by Lasheic
If they look at you like you've said something crazy, it's probably because you did say something crazy, and it's got nothing to do with whether or not intelligent life exists beyond Earth.

Define "crazy" in this context. I know for a fact that many not only got looked at as if they were crazy but were put to death as heretics for insisting the earth is a globe.

So unless we have specifics to evaluate here, your suggestion that it was crazy leaves it all in a vague realm and really doesn't address the question of WHY they look at one as if one is crazy.

Originally posted by Lasheic

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

evil is only what you percieve to be wrong which in itself does not make it wrong.

Say that to the parents of the children raped by paedohiles.

Say that to the parents of the paedophile raped in prison.

If we define evil as any act performed with a foreknowledge that any and/or all involved are not participating with informed willingness - all cards on the table - then evil becomes easy to spot.

"Informed" means aware of all pertinent data as far as any Individual of Sentience (within reason) knows.

This is why a government wherein ANY secret is allowed will breed evil. For power/money is involved, and with secrecy... Well. I'm sure that's obvious.

The parents of the pedophile must deal with how they choose to feel about the behavior of their child, as must the parents of the raped child. Does either cry for help? Does the pedophile cry for help as (s)he is performing the act? Is the child willing, with all information about the act?

There is evil in the act (the behavior is evil), for the pedophile knows the child is not willing, or at least not making an informed choice.

I think we have an apologist for evil.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Crazy, in this context, would be making fantastic claims well outside the realm of everyday human experience - seemingly with little regard to accuracy on corroborating statements and absolutely no evidence to support his claim. In short, what he claims is repugnant to logic.

As for the Earth... well... the ancient Greeks theorized it was spherical for a long time. Supposedly even back to Pythagoras around 500BC. I can't say much for what we don't have some evidence for prior to (or in lue of) written documentation. Around 240BC, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth to within 1% of accuracy using two sticks, their shadows, and some math. Aristarchus correctly placed the Earth in it's proper place in the solar system, as well as the other planets, and even the stars in the sky (within reason, his distances were rather conservative and much shorter than reality)

Then along came the Romans who didn't support education and knowledge the way the Ptolemy's did... and after them came the Christians and their "crazy" claims, repugnant to logic superstitions, and with no evidence to support them... they won over the uneducated masses and contributed significantly to the West's descent into the Dark Ages. Copernicus, Kepler, and others had to rediscover the knowledge that was lost at great personal risk from the institution that helped snuff out the light to begin with.

Magellan, in true ATS "SEE IT WITH MY OWN EYES" fashion finally proved the world was round by being the first known explorer to circumnavigate the globe - vindicating the Greeks and anyone with an ounce of curiosity and reason in their head that had previously suggested a spherical globe.

reply to post by Amaterasu

This is why a government wherein ANY secret is allowed will breed evil.

Governments cannot operate completely transparently. There will always be some form of secrets; be they military, financial, technological, or pertaining to resources. So long as this world is fractured into multiple competing nations, there will always be a need for secrecy. A one world government may help alleviate this, but brings it's own dangers. No so much from corruption, I think, but from stagnation and a direct loss of competition.

A quote I notice that a lot of conspiracy theorists like to toss around is one in which John F. Kennedy was speaking to dangers inherent to government secrets, and the very word "secret" is 'repugnant" to a free and open society. However, this isn't entirely accurate. It's an out-of-context quote mine in which Kennedy was actually pleading with the press for more responsible coverage so as to prevent the leakage of information to enemy troops. He stated he would not institute, and would oppose, any legislation which sought to limit the press - but urged them to take it upon themselves to censor their own coverage so that the Soviets couldn't glean tactical or political advantage.

Originally posted by pressure
inter dimentional beings took me and showed me what is going on in our milkly way galexy.

Congratulations, you are the 1000th member to claim that aliens have shown them something. Only difference is yours is "semi-original"

You win an extra foily tin foil hat

No wonder the mainstream think conspiracy believers are complete nut jobs :shk:



[edit on 2/5/2009 by OzWeatherman]

reply to post by OzWeatherman


i agree 100%, sometimes i wonder if some of the whacko things i see here are really belived by the people that post them, or if maybe they are tring to be creative, or maybe just tring to get thier kicks.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
reply to post by OzWeatherman

 

i agree 100%, sometimes i wonder if some of the whacko things i see here are really belived by the people that post them, or if maybe they are tring to be creative, or maybe just tring to get thier kicks.

I feel for ya. My initial response is to just write them off as trolls... but you know... dealing with creationists has completely borked my troll alarm. Because I've actually been exposed to people who really are that crazy and uneducated - I sometimes have trouble distinguishing who's serious and who's exaggerating for the sake of parody.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Crazy, in this context, would be making fantastic claims well outside the realm of everyday human experience - seemingly with little regard to accuracy on corroborating statements and absolutely no evidence to support his claim. In short, what he claims is repugnant to logic.

Repugnant to logic based on specific data. Much data is rejected when it conflicts with the preconceived picture of reality one has.

As for the Earth... well... the ancient Greeks theorized it was spherical for a long time.

This is irrelevant to my point. My point is that there are many perspectives that would have seen a fellow as crazy for believing something that was counter to "common" knowledge... And if "common" knowledge is controlled, we might presume that a wide range of truth is out there that we are not told about.

And so, we must weigh those data we encounter with some weight, some probability of being true. And if we plug the data we most see fits what we look at out there into things, often we must conclude that "common" knowledge cannot explain what we see. But other, "crazy" things do.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

This is why a government wherein ANY secret is allowed will breed evil.

Governments cannot operate completely transparently.

Not true. I show one solution in the book I wrote. It's FREE in the link in my sig.

There will always be some form of secrets; be they military, financial, technological, or pertaining to resources.

What would we fight over if we all could have what we wanted in material things? Poof. Military.

What would we need money for if we could have what we wanted in material things? Poof. Financial.

What would be the need of secrecy in technology if we were all looking for solutions to problems and not monetarily viable ones (money being gone)? Poof. Technology.

What if we could distribute resources efficiently and globally, resources renewable and ecologically managed? With robots and computers to do any job no one wants to do? Poof. Resources.

Read my book...? [smile]

So long as this world is fractured into multiple competing nations, there will always be a need for secrecy.

So long as we do not unite - and the Web is our hope to do so - they can move in secrecy.

A one world government may help alleviate this, but brings it's own dangers.

What need for government would one need if one had all one wanted, and combined it with all having the ability to witness their own perspective in recordings on devices open-source programmed but could not be called upon to testify against themselves?

See my book for further development of this.

No so much from corruption, I think, but from stagnation and a direct loss of competition.

If one has all one wants one is free to follow one's bliss... Who needs to compete except in friendly challenges? If that is one's bliss?

A quote I notice that a lot of conspiracy theorists like to toss around is one in which John F. Kennedy was speaking to dangers inherent to government secrets, and the very word "secret" is 'repugnant" to a free and open society. However, this isn't entirely accurate. It's an out-of-context quote mine in which Kennedy was actually pleading with the press for more responsible coverage so as to prevent the leakage of information to enemy troops. He stated he would not institute, and would oppose, any legislation which sought to limit the press - but urged them to take it upon themselves to censor their own coverage so that the Soviets couldn't glean tactical or political advantage.

This may be. I will accept that. It's not important. A military is only needed in a scarcity paradigm. Shift the paradigm to one of abundance and war is irrelevant.

And between where our tech is at and what is out there to tap, we have enough to go around ten times over. It's just SO poorly managed.

reply to post by Amaterasu

Repugnant to logic based on specific data. Much data is rejected when it conflicts with the preconceived picture of reality one has.

On the individual level, this merely might be a case of someone failing to be open minded. I would suggest Creationists as a perfect example of one who ridicules an opposing world view - and who stubbornly insulate themselves against it regardless of veracity.

In regards to the establishment of academia, you have to understand that resistance to new ideas is a part of the scientific method. It's not a fault. By subjecting a claim or a theory to peer-review, it ideally strengthens the theory as a whole by pointing out weaknesses and errors. If the theory still stands after the battery of peer review, it's consistent with what we observe in reality, then it may start to gain acceptance. It won't replace a currently held theory until it's as comprehensive as, or better, than the existing theory.

This doesn't mean they're closeminded to any but their narrow world view. Rather, science relies on keeping an open mind to new claims and entirely new ways of thinking.

Now, as a rule of thumb, fantastic claims require fantastic evidence to corroborate. The OP provides nothing in this regard.

Philosophically speaking, it's possible that the OP is correct and accurate in his assessment. It's unfortunately that he has reliable corroborating evidence to support his claim, because without it - nobody is going to believe him. This methodology may stifle an important fact in that case, but it also insulates the wielder from incorporating mountains of BAD data and false testimony wholesale. If his claim is an accurate reflection of reality, then evidence can be found and when enough has been gathered - the weight of the evidence will lend validity to his claim.

Otherwise, it's just crazy ramblings.

My point is that there are many perspectives that would have seen a fellow as crazy for believing something that was counter to "common" knowledge

You listed specifically the shape of the Earth. I countered with an example of reasoned arguments, physical evidence, and logical analysis leading the theory to prominence within the ancient world. Or, at least, as far as Greek academic influence spread.

As a reinforcement to my point, I noted how that information was lost due to the acceptance of unsubstantiated claims and fantastical testimonies without evidence to back them up. That loss set us back 1,000 years of progress and had to be re-discovered, at the hesitation and belligerence at times of the establishment built by those superstitions and unsubstantiated claims.

You may have wished to address the point in generalities, but the specific example you provided was a perfect illustration for my point.

reply to post by Amaterasu



Hey,that is a great book you referenced!Unfortunatly it will take the removal of the PTB to achieve that wonderful dream.

Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Repugnant to logic based on specific data. Much data is rejected when it conflicts with the preconceived picture of reality one has.

On the individual level, this merely might be a case of someone failing to be open minded. I would suggest Creationists as a perfect example of one who ridicules an opposing world view - and who stubbornly insulate themselves against it regardless of veracity.

In regards to the establishment of academia, you have to understand that resistance to new ideas is a part of the scientific method. It's not a fault. By subjecting a claim or a theory to peer-review, it ideally strengthens the theory as a whole by pointing out weaknesses and errors. If the theory still stands after the battery of peer review, it's consistent with what we observe in reality, then it may start to gain acceptance. It won't replace a currently held theory until it's as comprehensive as, or better, than the existing theory.

Fair enough, all of this, but things are moving faster and faster. At some point, we are on our own in a sense, and it's forums like ATS wherein we gather data and assess its veracity in real time (more or less). ALL data must be given SOME weight (however little) and compared to personal observation to see if it explains anything.

And if it does, more weight added. Not to say that weight should be a full load - I never give anything a 100% truth ribbon - but when things explain the world around us, even ones we would rather not be true, we must carry them as possibilities.

This doesn't mean they're closeminded to any but their narrow world view. Rather, science relies on keeping an open mind to new claims and entirely new ways of thinking.

Ideally, yes. Ego and other factors come into play in the reality of the arena, though, and secrecy abounds... So one might presume that one is lacking all the information unless one is on the inside of all the layers of secrecy.

Now, as a rule of thumb, fantastic claims require fantastic evidence to corroborate. The OP provides nothing in this regard.

I agree. But this is a realm of ideas here, not concrete proofs (though those strengthen acceptance of an idea). Entertaining the OP in the sceme of my observation, I cannot say the facts as I know them rule out what is said. I don't necessarily believe this has extremely high probability, but I cannot rule it out.

Philosophically speaking, it's possible that the OP is correct and accurate in his assessment.

Please elaborate on this. You object to the statements the OP made based on philosophy? Or did I miss your aim...?

It's unfortunately that he has reliable corroborating evidence to support his claim, because without it - nobody is going to believe him. This methodology may stifle an important fact in that case, but it also insulates the wielder from incorporating mountains of BAD data and false testimony wholesale. If his claim is an accurate reflection of reality, then evidence can be found and when enough has been gathered - the weight of the evidence will lend validity to his claim.

Otherwise, it's just crazy ramblings.

I'll tell you that I am unsure of the OP's "source," but that to me is irrelevant in a manner of speaking. I read the message and consider the source, and frankly, I see the message looking like what I see out there. The source takes a bit of weight away, but I can still give the message a chunk of probability of being close to the truth.

My point is that there are many perspectives that would have seen a fellow as crazy for believing something that was counter to "common" knowledge

You listed specifically the shape of the Earth. I countered with an example of reasoned arguments, physical evidence, and logical analysis leading the theory to prominence within the ancient world. Or, at least, as far as Greek academic influence spread.

As a reinforcement to my point, I noted how that information was lost due to the acceptance of unsubstantiated claims and fantastical testimonies without evidence to back them up. That loss set us back 1,000 years of progress and had to be re-discovered, at the hesitation and belligerence at times of the establishment built by those superstitions and unsubstantiated claims.

You may have wished to address the point in generalities, but the specific example you provided was a perfect illustration for my point.

Mea culpa. I did not read closely enough to see your point. Still... With secrecy, combined with both money and the faster pace of things, new ideas should be entertained where information (and counter-information) flows freely.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Hey,that is a great book you referenced!Unfortunatly it will take the removal of the PTB to achieve that wonderful dream.

Think of it, if we all did what was within our own power to facilitate abundance, it would be emergent.

And the only way to accomplish that is to bring awareness that it is possible to the tipping point.

Even most of the Lizard Hearted toadie to someone else.

The what? lol the tourting of human souls lol

Originally posted by Lasheic

talk like this is considered dangerous

Only in your own mind. To everyone else it's just silly and a little bit emo.

Sorry if you take this the wrong way, but don't try to represent "everyone else" because you do not know the thoughts of everyone else. Personally, a lot of the OP's statements are quite interesting to me and far from "silly and a little bit emo". Don't speak for me in the future. Thanks.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by RichieScott1]

reply to post by RichieScott1



Wow,calm down there buddy.I don't think the OP meant anything bad towards you.

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by RichieScott1

 

Wow,calm down there buddy.I don't think the OP meant anything bad towards you.

My aplogies if that seemed harsh, but all too often posters on this site tend to speak for everyone rather than conveying their own beliefs and views on a subject. If you believe the information provided by the OP to be contrary to your own, then phrase it such as you are not making the OP believe we all think he/she is crazy.

reply to post by RichieScott1


It was a humorous jab, not a tautological statement.

You ever get one of those humorous cards from friends that say "Jesus Loves You, but everyone else thinks you're an A-hole?" Do you really get mad at the people who send it to you for having the audacity to think they represent "everybody"?

Amaterasu; I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment. However I will be back to continue our exchange.

[edit on 2-5-2009 by Lasheic]