Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Saturday 20th December 2014 03:10:22 PM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 
These are answers that ttalady has provided in Philosophy

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 11/02/08 - Who should be the next US President........

and why?

ttalady answered on 11/06/08:

My Pops.

Why - because he's seen most of all, knows most of all, spends money likes it going out of style (fits right in), and the best part is he believes in this country and those that are not heard.

McCain nor Obama is my Pops, my pops is a normal non-politician father, friend, and respected man. You can expect justice from him but know he wants to know why. My father would be the best leader and lover of this country.

God bless and I sure hope America made the right decision?

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 04/17/08 - What are your views on the future of humanity?

.

ttalady answered on 05/03/08:

Humanity? One man/God to many, the Dalai Lama relates in compassion. "The Seeds of Compassion" convention in Seattle WA last week. WHAT A MOVEMENT!

Beyond politics, beyond money, beyond judgement I truly believe there is a need and want for compassion in this day and age. To truly venture into our feelings and thoughts as individuals and understanding the purpose of them. As the Dalai Lama puts it as well as the scientist who questioned him, the human desires and requires compassion.

I believe and think this. I know that showing someone and unexpected kindness a needed hand can bring only the best of two people. The one that acts and the one that inter acts in return.

My actual view of humanity is that of hope. I can only imagine living 50 years ago and wondering the same thing. WAR, POVERTY, RACIAL DIFFERENCES, RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCE!. We are still here!

We fight as we do, we even medicate as before but legally now! My concern is what happens when Mother Earth goes to hell? Then question humanity because then there will be none. The ulimate of only the strong shall survive. We lose compassion and we lose all hope of a normal life again, only the fact that we have to kill or be killed will be our thoughts.

I am glad to be back!
tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 08/02/07 - To what extent has philosophy changed your life?

.

ttalady answered on 08/02/07:

I shall live my life to the fullest. To never question my thoughts however question others. To know that I am just a blade of grass on a beautiful lawn and also know my blade might just help the others grow a little more.

To be as we are meant to be is beautiful, to figure that out is the hardest and most difficult thing, we are beautiful yet complicated.

Stay out of the box and keep your soul well known. Energy is a power many will never know and most will be happy to accept.

Trust your dreams, they are there for a reason, I HOPE SO...

Oldstillwild rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 06/15/07 - cultural elements of a civilization ..................

Would it be accurate to say that because certain cultural elements of a civilization are adopted by other civilizations, it means that the original civilization still lives?

For instance; Greek culture was amazingly rich and it was certainly adopted across most of Europe, but does it still live?

ttalady answered on 06/17/07:

A civilazation huh? Hey, I thought we are all the same. Boy I must be on the wrong plant! LOL!!! I think I understand your post, as in the melting pot, does it take away from the original cultural aspects one has? Please don't take me prejudicial in ANY way in this writing. A mear observer as a mutt American.

Playing it safe I am going to say yes and no. See I live in this small town in NY and let me tell you the Italian and Irish is high in content. From the beginning days of this small town there was a time where they had certain streets you lived on if you were Italian and the other side for the Irish. I don't believe the Irish made it then again you have muliple bars of Irish name then you come to restaurants and Italian, Italian, Italian... I come from neither strong culture therefore I don't know the real scoop but my guess is that at some point and time they came to agreement that the Irish have the bars and the Italians have the restaurants. The test continues, we have grown with many more cultures. Many Chinese and Africans. Not the Irish and the Italians have the struggle of fighting again for "their turf".

I honestly never see the Irish festival however we do have celebrate St. Patties day pretty hard in this little town and beer consuption at almost any festival is very high. Italians have a St. Anthony's weekend with tons of food and wine. The music is always a melting pot as well.

Even with religion, I have seen Christians become Jewish and visa versa. I don't believe you can forcefully change what one is in culture or religion.

tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 05/10/07 - State should encourage ...........................

Do you believe that when young students display talent in a particular field, the State should encourage the child to pursue that line of study, then pay all university costs so long as he or she persists?

ttalady answered on 05/11/07:

State = tax payers right? No way! Unless assistance is needed.

I have talent, no free bees in my life!

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/28/07 - What single person has most affected your thinking and your worldview?

.

ttalady answered on 05/02/07:

My Grandmother.

keenu rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 05/02/07 - How important are emotions and what role do they play in our lives?

From Hume, Rousseau, and Kant’s theory of virtue back to Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics the philosophy of Emotions has been written about.

Today that philosophy has been brought to the point that it is believed to be a form of intelligence by some philosophers.

What are your thoughts about emotion being a form of intelligence?

ttalady answered on 05/02/07:

If you can cry for others you live.

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Oldstillwild asked on 04/17/07 - Quantality(3)

History and present would prove over and over again,that a human life is just as much worth as any random individual may think at any point in time.

All discussion about ethics,morals,value of life and such therefore is hypocrytical and a hoax to reality.

why not?

ttalady answered on 04/18/07:

What will you fight for?

Does it take quanity or quality?

TTA

Oldstillwild rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jim.McGinness asked on 04/10/07 - What about the Problem of Evil?

Tony asked a question about the problem of evil in a somewhat twisted way

What is the factual basis of the Problem of Evil?
Are facts really at issue here? As I see it, the problem of evil is presented as an argument to confront believers with a seeming contradiction. On one side is the conception of God as omnipotent and all-benevolent. On the other side is presence in the created world of evil. This may include natural disasters and afflictions or people who act in ways that are considered "evil" or even some sort of reified, personifed evil, like the devil.

Some atheists see this as a slam-dunk argument, but religious philosophers have resisted with marvelous ingenuity (is Plantinga still considered the gold standard on this topic?). They recognize the apparent conflict but deflect the conclusion in a variety of ways.

What facts are really in play here? Does it count as a fact that people hold certain beliefs? Do the sophisticated arguments of the theologians satisfy the everyday believer? Are atheists similarly satisfied?

ttalady answered on 04/15/07:

Free will!

Question/Answer
Oldstillwild asked on 04/14/07 - Quantality?

Quantity is ruling over quality,which is fun of course...
Is this exception or typical for how things are going in this world?

ttalady answered on 04/15/07:

Now come on! Quanity might just relate to people. As in the quanity of people, can you relate to the quality of life?

The more people the more we pay, the more we lose. There is this every loving idea of "longer life". Yes the average person living till 100 years old! Why, what is the quality in that life. To live in a nursing home for 20 years? At 80 you are lucky to have a normal bodily function let alone remember whom you children are.

Everyone wants bigger and better. They fear death however take every chance to face it.

What we have we never take with us, what we make we never take with us, what we are is the only thing we leave behind.

What you call quanity I call family, what you call quailty I call family. Either or it is a win win situation!

TTA

Oldstillwild rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Oldstillwild asked on 04/14/07 - Quantality?(02)

What do we need more:

More philosophers for politicians?

or

More politicians for philosophers?

and why not?

ttalady answered on 04/15/07:

I wish to be neither at this point. My philosphy and my politics is ruining my marriage. Or is it, I can not be as I am? We need more of understanding, sitting back, looking at the BIG picture, and go from there.

Politicians fool the comman man, philosphy confuses the comman brain!

TTA

Oldstillwild rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
keenu rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/05/07 - What is absolutely the most fundamental thing in the universe.

.

ttalady answered on 04/07/07:

find happy:}

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 03/18/07 - What are your criteria of personal success?

.

ttalady answered on 03/23/07:

This is funny, "not being like my parents"! You said personal! Just kiddin I am 95% them and thank God for whom they helped me be!

I reach that when I have a goal of making someone's elses bad day a good one? When you don't go by the "rules" for a co-worker and they stick the "rules" to you. Then you smile, rub it off, and the personal thing begins.

Imagine, 40 girls in an office. Half with their monthly friend at one time, give and take a day. It is hard even as I am woman. I have my father's emotions. Simple yet understanding. When you get a hot flash I will either comfort you or laugh. What do you need, your emotion.

All the "girls" are disgusted that I enjoy raw fish, eat fish period, snails, ect. I am not afraid of being the subject of the matter, as long as it is true!

I was born on the day that fall is gone, winter is near, and the rebirth of the land is only months away. I am that of change!

tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 03/15/07 - Do you think that mankind is living in its last days?

I do. Ever since the beginning of time, every form of life has faced challenges that threatened its survival.

For every new problem that our technology or inventions have created, mankind has somehow managed to develop another form of technology or ability to fix the problem. Up until now, that is.

In my humble opinion, man has reached a turning point. Unlike any time in history before, we are now capable of creating global disaster or chaos on an unprecedented scale.

Nuclear weapons are a prime example. We have reached the point were we are able to create more problems than we could ever possibly be able to fix.

In the past, all wars and battles were localized. By this, I mean that the effects of a war usually stayed within a certain region. If a war broke out in africa, people living in France would most likely be unaffected.

This, however, is no longer the case. With the push of just a few different buttons, countries are now capable of destroying a large percentage of the earth's population living thousands of miles away.

In conclusion, I give mankind no more than 500 years to live. People, today are all concerned about fixing Global warming, yet an even more immanent issue threatens us today. I personally do not think that mankind will be around long enough to see the negative affects of global warming. By that time, a huge portion of the earth will be unihabitable due to high levels of radition, or something such as that.

In addition, Terrorism is a new enemy, of which we are poorly equipped to deal with. Terrorism is on the rise. New epedemics(sp?) such as AIDS are still at record levels, and new strains of deadly diseases are popping up everyday.

To be sure, there have been many times in the past in which people thought that doomsday was knocking at the door (such as the Cold War era, etc). However, technology has made the world a more dangerous place to live with each passing day. And it will only get worse, at an increasingly faster pace.

So, what do YOU think? Do you really think that mankind will be around to witness the next Millenium?

.....and that, is my thought-of-the-week.

I came across this and wondered what your reaction might be.

ttalady answered on 03/23/07:

If, if, we can have maybe half of the population of the world thinking like that we might just have many generations of man kind. Only half, that's not bad?

The truth is you need to look smaller... I have said this before and before. It is not the BIG picture you need to worry about. It is the individual.

Can you say "I made a difference today"? Can you? I can, I stopped an un-called for talk about a young silly girl. Shop talk, yes, however a hint of jealousy mixed with their words. I'm not a rat however they think that, when you go beyond "normal" bashing then my angel side comes in and says "enough". It was respected.

I vote, I try my best to spark up the vote even if not what I want. JUST VOTE! That is my small part in something too big to have a dealing with. I shall focus on what GOOD I can do with this little mind, little heart, and little being I am.

I cry for those men and women in Iraq! I listen, I hear, I pray for them. I AM PROUD OF THEM AND SICK AT MYSELF FOR NOT BEING THERE WITH THEM!

From there it is in God's hands. He just put me here to give him a helping hand.

Big hugs
tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
CeeBee2 asked on 03/20/07 - Words and music -- three questions for consideration.

1. Which is more important in a song, the words or the music?
2. Why?
3. Teen boys tend to focus on the music, whereas teen girls zero in on the words. What is it about males and females that causes this statement to be true?

ttalady answered on 03/23/07:

Very interesting question and I'll give it a shot!

How many girls do you know that "can't" or do not dance? Boys are slow to this and scared of the rythem thing. Boys are born with this beat, yes the beat of a mother's heart, but I believe they focus on that from day one. A focus for them.

The female side looks for the meaning behind the beat. What is it telling me?

The honest truth is how we are female vs male. Female will dig the whole to China to find the answer/reason behind; to feelings as where men will just feel them.

As where many men do not dance, afraid to show their inner self. Women flaunt that and tend to find out the meaning later, or know it a head of time.

Music is VERY powerful. It brings out the part of us that we tend not to explore let alone can not explore with out it.

Males stick with what they know, females have a trend of wandering into play full areas in life.

This is just going on my viewings, how it goes in Jenny world! Men do rule, they just have that real love for who they are.

Love ya'll
tta, Jen

CeeBee2 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 03/23/07 - What does the pursuit of philosophy imply?

.

ttalady answered on 03/23/07:

I'll have to agree and disagree with prior posts. I think that and live that.

The pursuit of philosophy to me is that of what my mind is saying to me. What does is want, require, love, hate, what does it want?

I wish to understand my thoughts, why I think as I do. Why is it I believe and think that too many young boys are put on medication to "control" their normal boy behavior? Why do women have sex with a man, protect or not, and when the child just happens to be in the belly is called a "problem"?

What is it with the "natural" behavior of humans that allows us to destroy what we do not know and refuse to understand?

Everyone is so.... focused on the war in Iraq. When will they look at their own neighborhoods and see the termoil that lies there?

My life is filled with philosophy, it is what gets me through life! Look at it, analyze, and then make the best decision possible.

You are all so fancy with you readings, of others work, however if you give your own brain a chance there just might be something there that is beyond "just being nice" but more of a revolution!

Pretty funny how so.. many base their God given talent of thought to that of a person that died over a hundred years ago or more. Can we not think for ourselves let alone that changes from the 1900's?

tta

Oldstillwild rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
MarySusan rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/04/07 - A New Beginning:



Hello, guys and gals. Leslie, my fiance, kicked my .... for leaving you. She hugged and kissed me for leaving the C .... Board. Anyway, I'm back! Let's go, go, go!

HANK

ttalady answered on 03/15/07:

Now that's a WOMAN!! One that does not let you fall far from what you love!

I must admit I have not been on the computer to have seen you take your leave of absence however welcome back!

TTA

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/07/07 - Perfection:



Is there a TRUE interpretation of PERFECTION? (Subjective involvement should make you aware of your own existence)

HANK

ttalady answered on 03/07/07:

me in gods eyes

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 03/07/07 - Perfection:



Is there a TRUE interpretation of PERFECTION? (Subjective involvement should make you aware of your own existence)

HANK

ttalady answered on 03/07/07:

me in gods eyes

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 02/20/07 - the concept of everlasting life. ...........

I find the concept more bazaar, that humans are part of one, or much great consciousness, than the concept of everlasting life. Why, because a persons consciousness lies solo within themselves. The proof of that is the fact that you don’t need me, nor I you, and the proof of that is that you may live or die without me, or me without you, each without the other.

Arguments anyone?

ttalady answered on 02/21/07:

When does life start and when does it end? What does life really consist of? Is it breathing, a heart beat, brain activity? Could it be more than that? The spiritual side of something beyond what we truly understand.

I believe in everlasting life in how I perceive life. To me it is not just the breathing, the heart beat, and the enormous amount of brain activity that runs the whole system of a body. There is something much more powerful about us. A child in the womb, has not taken a breath of it's own oxygen, however it is not a living thing? Some refer to such as a mear parasite living off of a host. I recall a picture of a doctor that was operating on a "fetus"/baby while in the womb. The picture shows this little hand reaching out of the incision and grabbing onto the doctors finger. INCREDIBLE!

On a more somber note the death of loved ones. God, how their memory lives with me! Even to the point of wondering if my Grandmother would approve or not. I dream of those I have lost often. Not just the people, as well pets. This makes me believe they are not that far away and in my eyes forever living if not physically with me, they live forever with me. There are relatives I never had the honor of meeting however still there is this closeness I feel with them.

It all depends on how you see life. Is it just like a watch that starts with a new battery and ends with a dead one or is it more like that tree your Grandmother loved that grows and grows more every year even having gone through the nastiest of weather, the most beautiful days, and the times you needed some trimming?

If you make a mark on others in your physical time of life how can it be so.... impossible to live forever even if just in memory? I heard Elvis still lives! LOL

Best to you!

TTA

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 02/15/07 - COMPATIBILITY:


"We are birds of the same nest, We may wear different skins, We may speak in different tongues, We may believe in different religions, We may belong to different cultures, Yet we share the same home – our Earth." - Atharva Veda

Do most people stop to think about the meaning of this quote? It's quite obvious!

HANK

ttalady answered on 02/15/07:

Yes, and a beautiful quote. To read it or even hear it brings chills but is all possible.

Do we understand how small we are? Just one simple being that really has nothing to do with whether life continues. Think small, start small, then let it grow if it does.

Genuine love for another human being is the most powerful reality in the world. I admit I have certain prejudices with others. When I smile at them, they smile back, I just did a good thing. That prejudice diminshes slowly but surely.

Face the most uncomfortable situations and soon enough you never knew they were there. To love is hard these days, very hard, to trust even more. To dread on either is to waste time wondering and never knowing what either mean!

Think small!

TTA

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 02/14/07 - Are the guidelines being followed on this board?

4. Civility and courtesy
An answer to a question should be courteous, civil, and respectful. If the Expert is tempted to post something nasty, better to post nothing at all.

ttalady answered on 02/15/07:

As well, a question should be courteous, civil, and repectful. There are ways to go around bashing another with using choice/intelligent wording.

I remember dealing with this as askme. Ignore, ignore, ignore when it gets out of hand. There is always reason for open disagreement, however to get personal is another issue.

Something I hope you might be open minded to is that to read words does not explain the true meaning behind them. Body language, eye contact, and over all presence of words said may mean something different than that read.

The way I feel about this board is very dear to me and is personal to me. I question what I wrote the next day as to being proper and trying my best not to sound like an idiot. I must admit that my day in day out life is so.... much more important than that of this computer. This is my time to think, to focus on life, and in all honesty to ask questions or give an answer no one in my day to day life would give two hoots about.

This board is to open the mind, think beyond the "politically correct" answer, and ultimately know that you are not alone in the world with how you think.

Our minds are so special, this board is so special, lets keep it that way.

Maybe just me, this is how I relate.

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
domino rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
frick asked on 02/13/07 - Choux

You are a disgusting piece of trash. You spit on people who offer you friendship and love. Reading your answers on AW the last few weeks makes me wonder how the hell you're allowed to stink up every place you go.

Go away.

ttalady answered on 02/13/07:

I can not give sympathy to you Choux. I will answer with words of wisdom, take a deep breath, apologize for hurt to those you have, and then grow from it.

I bashed on someone at this site once pretty good, a couple of years ago. Hind site was beyond me at that point in my life, I just went on to the point that I must not be able to go back. My life was being understood with myself.

A holding hand is here, just allow to feel it!

You want to talk, you know how to find me, I don't know how to find you!

TTA

archstanton rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Choux... rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
frick rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 02/12/07 - Can we assess whether beliefs are reasonable?

If so how?

ttalady answered on 02/13/07:

If your beliefs fulfil your need in life and do not harm anyone else then they are reasonable. Ever heard of such?

I still stick by my core belief, treat others as you wish to be treated. I will not harbor my self upon you unless you ask. When you ask there are limits with my belief, but it is still, treat me as you wish to be treated. When you harbor your beliefs upon me, with out me asking for such, then again back to square one.

Reason to me, is what one can understand even if not accept. There are limit to reason when you compare to belief. In example, I believe all people are good. If you are reasonable you know all people are not good.

I think the only way you could assess your question is to who you are as a person. An individual can accept a belief for being reasonable only as an indivdual. You can never decide for the world.

Yes you can assess such, I may disagree!

Best to you!

TTA

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 02/04/07 - How far do your beliefs affect what you do?

.

ttalady answered on 02/13/07:

This is a tough one to be honest with really. I believe most try to follow their beliefs to the core however when one really looks back on the past you can really analyse how far one is from their beliefs. As to where they can become stronger or weaker.

As for myself, my number one belief I try to live by on a daily basis, is to treat others as I want to be treated. Such a simple philosophy in life to think of however to hold it true in some of the most difficult situations, feelings involved, then is the test.

I believe I have become quite a push over and "brown noser" in others eyes due to my actions/reactions. Then again that is to those that have not experianced the power of being nice, being modest, understanding even if not accepting.

My beliefs are who I am even if I can not follow them second to second of my life. They allow me to sit in my own judgement of myself in how I can become a better person in life. Not just for others, as well for my own well being.

Best to you!
TTA

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 01/16/07 - How do liberals formulate their world views and moral perspectives?

.

ttalady answered on 01/26/07:

FEELINGS

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 01/22/07 - PHILOSOPHY;



"The word ‘philosophy’ must mean something which stands above or below, but not beside the natural sciences." - Ludwig Wittgenstein

Your interpretation please!

HANK

ttalady answered on 01/26/07:

A gift! It is not what most understand, know, accept.

I take natural science to mean that of this world, trees, flowers, dirt. Those that focus on just that are blind to the truth of life.

We can learn from such but in all reality will never know the truth.

We will never know the FACT!

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 11/26/06 - Are you looking for something Spiritual, why? ....

To know the real source, ones essencethe meaning of life. Where do I come from? Who am I? What am I? These questions cause discomfort and trouble a person. So why pursue them?

ttalady answered on 11/29/06:

How can you possibly bring life into this world if you do not have a half a** answer to all of these?

Really what is the purpose of bringing life into the world if you have no idea what the heck yours is? It is a noble meaning to want to know why, what, when, how. If not then there is no sense of life at all!

TTA

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Oldstillwild asked on 11/28/06 - 4real....

The only thing that counts,is what you really did.
Thats the only reality.
"If.....,then Id have done jadajadajada.....",
is not a valid statement,ever.(<:)~
Pure illusion.
No realistic value whatsoever.

Would youve posted this issue or any other issue earlier than me,if youd have had the opportunity?

No,
because you didnt.

ttalady answered on 11/29/06:

Ahhh old still wild, you are just a young soul. Do you not believe or ever had dejavue? My french is rough so pardon the spelling. You have never felt like you have been there before, conversation, ect? I have those, not all that often now, but in younger years quite often. I knew what was to be said and honestly changed it up from what I was suppose to say.

Maybe we are in this big hole of time. Where we can not get really in or out of it. Maybe not looking back means you are ready to head for a better life!

Never knowing but always hoping for an answer!

Oldstillwild rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Oldstillwild asked on 11/24/06 - Black magic?

Astronomers conclude,that the dark energy seems to be the driving factor behind the accellerating expansion of the universe.
Although tnere is no consensus about this phenomenon(some others think ,its all about changes in gravity and again others are assuming,that there are further more unknown energyfields in the universe causing the expansions.Also it might be,that dark energy is a manifestation of the empty space itself.),

To me,

the thought is interesting if our origine might be directly related to this energy.......(<:)~?

Anyhow,its interesting,that there might be a "material" alternative for the phenomenon "God".

Also,its interesting ,that this dark energy could be the universal link to possibly other places with "life" in the universe.......(<:)~?

(of course this is all speculation,yet....)?

ttalady answered on 11/24/06:

Come on, you do not feel energy from another? Your soul is such an energy field it is crazy.

Have you ever had a bad feeling about a person, maybe me you might say, but ok.

We do have souls, a life, that is beyond what we can really accept as fact. We can not explain most of what we are. Understand that your hand, if you believe in your hand, is very powerful and special. It all depends on how you use it.

Oldstillwild rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 11/24/06 - What is the only kind of scientific proof available in philosophy?

While some have argued that the logical rules, such as those of definition, classification, and inference are the only proofs in speculative science, there have been other claims to knowledge.
The laws of nature are true, and only our ideas of them can be false. That the true thought of a thing is not an opinion, but the conception of the thing itself.

Now that the divine has been eliminated from the ethical world, truth must be sought outside of it. Reason too has been eliminated from the ethical world, truth, being divorced from reason, is reduced to a mere speculation.

ttalady answered on 11/24/06:

Your mind goes in circles, why not focus on the object?

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 11/12/06 - What is the self? How does it control itself?

.

ttalady answered on 11/12/06:

as you see,

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux... asked on 11/02/06 - Giant Human Brain Proves There is No God

"...consider the size of the human brain. If God exists, then it necessarily follows that a **fully functional mind can exist without a body**--and if that is true, God would have no reason to give us brains. We would not need them. For being minds like him, being "made in his image," our souls could do all the work, and control our thoughts and bodies directly. At most a very minimal brain would be needed to provide interaction between the senses, nerves, and soul. A brain no larger than that of a monkey would be sufficient, since a monkey can see, hear, smell, and do pretty much everything we can, and its tiny brain is apparently adequate to the task. And had God done that--had he given us real souls that actually perform all the tasks of consciousness (seeing, feeling, thinking)--that would indeed count as evidence for his existence, and against mere atheism.

In contrast, **if a mind can only be produced by a comparably complex machine**, then obviously there can be no God, and the human brain would have to be very large--large enough to contain and produce a complex machine like a mind. Lo and behold, the human brain is indeed large--so large that it kills many mothers during labor (without modern medicine, the rate of mortality varies around 10% per child). This huge brain also consumes a large amount of oxygen and other resources, and it is very delicate and easily damaged. Moreover, damage to the brain profoundly harms a human's ability to perceive and think. So **our large brain is a considerable handicap, the cause of needless misery and death** and pointless inefficiency--which is not anything a loving engineer would give us, nor anything a good or talented engineer with godlike resources would ever settle on.

***But this enormous, problematic brain is necessarily the only way conscious beings can exist if there is no God nor any other supernatural powers in the universe.*** If we didn't need a brain, and thus did not have one, we would be many times more efficient. All that oxygen, energy, and other materials could be saved or diverted to other functions. We would also be far less vulnerable to fatal or debilitating injury, we would be immune to brain damage and defects that impair judgment or distort perception (like schizophrenia or retardation), and we wouldn't have killed one in every ten of our mothers before the rise of modern medicine. In short, the fact that we have such large, vulnerable brains is the only way we could exist if there is **no God**, but is quite improbable if there is a God who loves us and wants us to do well and have a fair chance in life. Once again, atheism predicts the universe we find ourselves in. The Christian theory does not." <<< Carrier in an essay

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


So, we see proof that **the mind** cannot exist without the giant human brain we all have.

ttalady answered on 11/03/06:

All I have to do is touch you and show you7.....

Think beyond what you "know".

I take on the challenge!

tta

Choux... rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 10/25/06 - possibilities.....................................

Do you most often base your decisions on, probabilities, or possibilities? Have you sometimes found that you had made an assumplion that was based on possibilities.

ttalady answered on 10/26/06:

What you know or don't? Hmmm. Always what I know? Think I know? 31 years counts for something ya know!

A possibility can cause problems. A wayed out decision aka probabiltiy (sp on all) is always better.

Lets change the words, a chance or a choice. Same but different! You want to bet or already know (even some what)?

tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/01/06 - In what circumstances would you choose to die?

.

ttalady answered on 10/06/06:

For the chance to have a child come from my body into this world and experiance life. If I were pregnant, the doctors telling me my body can not handle the pregnancy, I would choose the child. That has been a number one for me when thinking times before of your question.

Second I would do as they said two of the Amish girls did in the school killing and give my life for those younger than I. I would choose my fate first even if it is giving mear minutes for one that has not lived as long as I.

Third and not as strong as the others is my country. I regret having not having interest in the service years ago. I won't go into it.

I believe in my soul I live for others. I truly do. When my day comes I do not fear it, I only hope I have had the chance to make anothers life better in some way. I believe I have a purpose in this life, well beyond what I may even imagine, and that purpose, when accomplished, may end my life here. What ever that may be, I only hope and pray that I understand it when it comes.

Best to you,
TTA

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/06/06 - What has given you the greatest joy in life?

.

ttalady answered on 10/06/06:

Giving has given me the greatest (so far) in life. It is amazing how good it feels and is to give to others. Even the simplest act of kindness has it's own rewards.

Not a parent yet however I can imagine a child would be joy in itself. Then again I have a neice and nephew and they are the world to me! They say a child changes everything to a marriage/person. That change is only one of love. Really can anyone have the same love for another person than that they do for their child? I have yet to hear one person that can tell me they do not share a really special and different kind of love and joy with a child. It changes you...

What has given you such?

TTA

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MarySusan asked on 09/27/06 - IQ and Personality

'People who are grouchy, grumpy, feisty and difficult to get along with in their youth and middle age are getting the last laugh. It turns out that people who have this personality type are the most intelligent senior citizens.

That's the word from Morgan State University psychology professor Jacqueline Bichsel, who co-authored a study that found when people reach age 60, those who are disagreeable maintain a higher level of intelligence than their more easy-going friends, reports The Baltimore Sun. "These individuals have a higher vocabulary," she told the paper. "They have a better use of words, a better knowledge of facts."

It doesn't end there. All those grouchy senior citizens are in many ways smarter than the young whippersnappers they probably spend a good portion of the day criticizing. And this has turned the world of psychology upside-down. Aren't we supposed to become more addled in our old age? Forgetful and a little goofy? Bichsel says not--provided you're a crab at heart. "People are just intrigued by the fact that disagreeableness can be a good thing, particularly in old age," she told Sun reporter Joe Burris.

The study: 239 women and 142 men ages 19 to 89, some of whom had only attended a few years of high school and others of whom held graduate degrees, were given two tests. The first was a personality assessment that measured experience, continuousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. The second was an intelligence test.

The results: The researchers found that personality was a prime factor predicting general intelligence, that is knowing facts and vocabulary--the kind of intelligence that you would use to play "Jeopardy." Interestingly, those who were under 60 did not outperform those who were over 60 in any cognitive measure, but those who were over 60 and had disagreeable personalities had higher intelligence scores than the younger group. The study findings were presented at the American Psychological Association meeting in New Orleans."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I posted this on the Philosophy Board because this board has the most intelligent participants(my observation)at AW, and some of the eldest and most grumpy.

Grumps rule?

ttalady answered on 09/28/06:

Well I guess this would relate to a great shirt I saw at Disney two weeks ago. It said "I'm Grumpy because you're Dopey". Maybe it could be that grumpy people are often grumpy due to the intelligence they have and others lack.

I only wonder, would you put on your head stone "I did not die happy but I did die smart". LOL!

Have a great day!

TTA

MarySusan rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 09/02/06 - When, if ever, is assassination morally justified?

Would you have supported the plot to kill Hitler?

ttalady answered on 09/03/06:

At the time yes, now no. Reason being what have we learned from his actions? A Tyrant and with that it is not accepted in human society. Does it still happen, yes, of course, is it the accepted life no way.

People want this big clap and all problems are gone in life. Life is beyond us, it incorporates so.... very much, way more than we can touch at times.

I watched a documentry called Nemisus today. It hit on life, love, and death from the natures point of view. We are not all that different.

TTA

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MicroGlyphics asked on 08/20/06 - What are Conservative conserving?

It seems to me by definition, Conservatives are seeking to conserve some past not fully grasping that (1) nothing is permanent and (2) time moves only in one direction...forward.

If I were to take Conservatisism to the absurd, I would say we should not progress past the Palelithic period. All progress was at one time Progressive (as the word "progress" might relate). Conservatives want to go back to some past, whether it be the fantasy of 1950s Americana or Victorian England, or the days of the Magna Carta.

I understand Conservatives want to hold onto the the past under the auspices of it might be considered tried and true, but in the end, time waits for no one.

So, I restate my question: What are American Conservatives conserving?

ttalady answered on 08/22/06:

The foundation of the nation! We are conserving the fundimentals in which our country was built on. It is beyond the constitution, it is the family unit, the marriage, children, bringing home the bacon and working for it.

Protecting the children and families that create a wonderful society. Giving meaning to honor and repect. We will hold on to our beliefs and we do allow others in their own.

Note the movement is on!! Less kids in school are have sex at young ages and if so they are using protection. I am hearing more and more people waiting til marriage. The liberal view that life is a free for all. Sure but you pay the consiquences of your actions!

MicroGlyphics rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Coup_de_Grace asked on 08/21/06 - *Liberals*

I read an opinion poll and sorta study of the American people...this was last year.

The results were that the majority of American people agreed with the programs of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration and the Liberals that followed....that would be Medicare, Social Security, regulation of Capitalism and money products, etc.

The people who call themselves Moderates are most probably Liberals. Hence, some of the confusion about political labels in America.

ttalady answered on 08/22/06:

Sure they agreed at the time, that generation that might have had a bit more trust in the government controlling their health and retirement. Live and learn I call it, Medicare is such a highway robbery scheme, 41% of all births in America are paid by this and people wonder why there are so many "single" mothers. Hello, why get married and have your 2.5 kids having to pay for the birth of them let alone insurance for their health.

Social (Un) Security! Another joke that the government knows better than I for my own future. I'll never see it and it kills me the most of some that actually recieve this. A family member of mine sits on her toosh collecting social security from the passing of her husband 4 years ago. She is totally capable of working, she does from time to time, odd jobs, and straight out of the horses mouth,"I only work when I get bored, when I get a fill of out of the house I quit".

I find that most independants actually do not like either of these systems. Most independants I come across are more of "traditionalists". They believe in fending for oneself! Of course helping those that can not but not supporting those that just will not!

These polls I wonder about. How do they ask these questions? How is the wording? Do they ask if there are any problems with these programs? I think many of these are one sided and don't really get to the actual ratio of truth.



Coup_de_Grace rated this answer Average Answer
Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 08/10/06 - ADMIRATION:



Foiled Plot Brings New Security, Delays
LONDON (AP) - British authorities said Thursday they thwarted a terrorist plot to simultaneously blow up several aircraft heading to the U.S. using explosives smuggled in carry-on luggage.

My favorite people has always been the English. They never let me down. Allow me to express my appreciation.

HANK

ttalady answered on 08/10/06:

God bless them! As they say, "Brilliant"!

It has been brought to the attention of the public on how excellent there investigators are. The US should look to them in restructuring the FBI and CIA into one. Take away the "I caught him first deal" and just catch them! The US should also take a good look at the no waiver stance of Israel. There army one of the best in the world.

If I had the chance I would kiss Blair's feet. The man is a true gem in my eyes and I would vote for him as a political leader in America. He get's it! He is the real deal, a leader, excellent speaker, and I must say not bad looking either.

Best to you!

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 08/10/06 - CASSIUS CLAY:



Voted the Sportsman of the Century in 1999 by Sports Illustrated. We know him as Muhammad Ali, the boxer. Please read:

"Following his ascension to champion, he also became famous for other reasons: he revealed that he was a member of the Nation of Islam (often called the Black Muslims at the time) and changed his name to Cassius X, discarding his surname as a symbol of his ancestors' enslavement, as had been done by other Nation members such as Malcolm X. He was soon given the name Muhammad Ali by the leader of the Nation, Elijah Muhammad, who revealed the name to Ali as "his true name," although only a few journalists (most notably Howard Cosell) accepted it at that time. The adoption of this name symbolized his new identity as a Black Muslim, and he retained the name even after he later became a Sunni Muslim."

Source: Wikipedia

Does the thought of having a Muslim as our Sportsman of the Century (20th) poke you in your little old heart? Don't some Muslims "sting like a bee?"

HANK

ttalady answered on 08/10/06:

Cute Hank! I must say I respect the man. How sad it is that some can not let go of the past and work on a better future.

I must also say that as a star, at least he did not pull a Madonna, Prince, or Michael Jackson thing with names in relation to beliefs or religion.

I say pray as you will, believe as you will, don't preach your God to me! Everyone has the right to religion and which ever they choose but don't think yours is any better than anyone elses. I live by that for sure.

Best to you Hank!

TTA

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 08/10/06 - What the devil is similarity?! Where is it???

If two things have exactly the same shape they are similar. So their similarity is not imaginary. But where is similarity located? In both things? How can it be in two places at once? And if it is not in the things where the devil is it?!

ttalady answered on 08/10/06:

I relate similarity to a perception. How our mind perceives something to be related/simliar to another.

You know, answer already done, I just read rosends continuation. Darn it!

I guess our minds are kinda smililar huh!?

TTA

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 08/09/06 - Truth is no defense................................

Canadian (the Terrorist Highway to the US) law contends that truth is no defense in a Libel action. What I wonder is, is whether the Canadian people hate America as much as their politicians seem to? And just to think, what if Canada were responsible for its own security? Of course truth is a defense in America, but what say you, should truth be a defense?

ttalady answered on 08/09/06:

Are you using "truth be a defense", as in how Iraq did not follow any of the UN resolutions so we had legal right for action? As an example I mean.

I say yes. Funny how you bring up the fact the Candians mostly rely on the US for it's protection. In discussing the Israel/Lebanon war my boss says, "God, could you imagine being in war with Canada?". I giggled, she looked at me curiously, and I stated, "Darling, we are Canada's army, the US is pretty much all Canada has". I understood her comparison however the truth is the truth.

I honestly don't believe most Canadians have all that many hard feelings for the US. Sure you have anti-American sentiment from some but I would say not much more than in our own country. In all honesty I believe that most anti-American sentiment from other countries is pure jealousy. What we have, how we live, and how free we really are. A normal emotion, sad emotion, but all the same it is real.

Best to you!

TTA

MicroGlyphics rated this answer Average Answer
Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jackreade asked on 08/02/06 - Hubris

Why should some cultures that have contributed nothing much positive to the world or their people in the last few hundred years be allowed to be a world player just because they will blow up citizens of other cultures if not elevated?

Isn't this simple blackmail?

ttalady answered on 08/03/06:

Bullies I would call them! What do they want, these countries that pull this?

Money, money, money.... Like that bully in school that would beat you up for the lunch money. Money=power, power=BIG EGO! World domination?

We need a new UN or nothing at all! Is that pretty much the world court?

tta

jackreade rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
MicroGlyphics asked on 08/02/06 - Is any segregation moral?

Piggybacking on Dark Crow's questions around racism and segregation, is any segregation promoting inequality under the law moral, whether by race, gender, or class.

Please don't chase down a rabbit hole by attempting to argue that people are in fact different. This is not the arguement. The arguement is around the legal status of inequality.

Should Blacks be treated different than Whites? Arabs different than Jews? Males different than Females? Christians different than Atheists? A Senator different from a Janitor?

ttalady answered on 08/03/06:

What ever happened to just being a nice person. What one thinks does not mean one has to be cruel to another.

I met a man a couple of month ago at a party that was wearing these really cool beads around his neck. He did not look like the jewelry kind but I was in wonder of his beads. I asked him instead of staring. He is Buddist. They were his prayer beads, which I had to explain to my hubby they are kinda like a rosery for Catholics. I asked his permission to touch them in which he did and again I was in awe. We continued conversation about his religion and his life style, out of interest and wanting to know. From there religion talk ended and normal "can you believe this weather" talk resumed.

What you don't know does hurt you. It keeps you in wonder and with out a true knowledge.

It is funny how you call my words in other posts propaganda, what are yours?

Best to you,
TTA

MicroGlyphics rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 08/02/06 - Is segregation a form of Racism?

Some people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy. We have to keep in mind at all times that we are not fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as free humans in this society.
I am not a racist in any form whatsoever. I don't believe in any form of discrimination or segregation.

ttalady answered on 08/03/06:

My Father once said, "The oceans were put on this Earth for a reason....". To explain that societies were meant to stay as they were from the beginning. Just a theory I know but makes sense to me.

Discrimination and segregation happens. It just happens. Ever been to NYC? Supposively the largest melting pot in such a small area. Heard of China town, Queens, just too many to name. We segregate ourselves! Our small city in upstate has the poor section, African-American section, Italian section, Irish section, rich section. I prefer the land and no neighbor section. People segregate themselves even if not intentional.

I remember my first trip to NYC. Maybe 10 in my Pops used Cadillac with the family. Mom, Dad, and the three kids. Pops took the wrong exit and we ended up in a real bad area. The first sign of that was a vehicle on the side of the road with tires gone, the car burnt to a crisp, and the thing had been totally stripped. Dad locked the doors and said "Do not look at anyone". I tried my best but being the first time in such a big city I had to look out of the corner of my eye. People were staring at us, that look that seemed to say "You don't belong here". Some where even laughing and pointing at us, maybe because we would not "eyeball" them. This was there part of the city, no doubt!

Society segregates itself, with homes, families, streets, rivers, mountains, ect ect. I have always believed that in America if we take away the African, Italian, Irish, Israel, Iranian, Indian, ect -American then for once we will just be Americans.

Kinda funny how so... many complain of discrimination/segregation how ever they put their difference before what they are, or are they?

My opinion of course!

TTA

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MicroGlyphics asked on 08/03/06 - Can one religion be superior to another religion?

Given that religion is derived from the same matter as myth and faery tales, can one religion be superior? What would make it superior? Would the number of gods make a religion more superior? Would the cool religious outfits make it superior? What about the cool hats and regalia? Does the architecture of the places of worship come into play?

I was just wondering...

ttalady answered on 08/03/06:

No, I can not see any one religion being superior to another. This is from one that considers herself a Christian believer.

There are many from many other religions that would disagree. Some that consume there lives with there religion and live it day to day.

I would have to say that in the end of our lives we find our maker. Whether it be my God or yours, whos to really know until then?

What is really interesting is that beyond our beliefs we are mear mortals. We are just people put on the Earth for what? What is our purpose? Is it to destroy each other and everything around us?

Religion is only superior in the one soul. That of your soul, my soul, any one's soul.

Best to you,
TTA

MicroGlyphics rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 07/31/06 - Editorial for The Boston Herald

This war must not end
By Jules Crittenden/ Online Exclusive
Boston Herald City Editor

Monday, July 31, 2006 - Updated: 10:53 AM EST

The war in Lebanon must not end short of its logical conclusion. Its logical conclusion is not the successful use of human shields by Hezbollah to hamstring the Israeli Defense Forces. Its logical conclusion is the destruction of Hezbollah as a military and political force that will always remain a threat to peace and stability of the region.



Hezbollah has gotten a pass from the international community at Qana, as it did when it targeted UN peacekeepers for death by placing Hezbollah fighting positions within meters of the doomed UN observation post, as it has in numerous other tragedies in recent weeks. Israel has received widespread condemnation for firing on a town that Hezbollah cynically used as a base to launch missiles. Further questions of what actually happened in Qana are raised by the Israeli report that the building in which as many as 60 men, women and children were killed did not collapse for up to eight hours after the IDF attack, possibly in a secondary explosion. The IDFs goodwill gesture of a 48-hour suspension of air attacks was answered by a volley of Hezbollah rockets into Israel.



The apparent civilian death toll in the Lebanon campaign in excess of 500 -- "apparent" because it is impossible to determine how many of them are in fact Hezbollah combatants, and beyond that, how many were purposefully placed in harms way by Hezbollah -- has weakened the international communitys willingness to let Israel defend itself unhindered and led to more calls for a ceasefire.



As some observers have noted, Hezbollahs ability so far to hang on and continue to inflict Israeli casualties is seen as a victory in Arab eyes. Merely failing to be routed by the Israeli onslaught is triumph.



This shows that Israel, and by extension the free world, is facing an enemy on a spiritual par with the Japanese in the Pacfic in World War II, though not nearly as capable as that enemy was, even when that enemy had similarly overplayed its hand.But equally tenacious and delusional, seeing futile acts of suicide and homicide as tactical and strategic coups.



Lebanon is not war-era Japan.Its people will not throw their babies off cliffs as the Israelis approach, and peasants armed with sharpened sticks will not launch Banzai charges against them.Israel need not fear the kinds of losses that the United States faced in the invasion of Japan.To prevail in Lebanon, Israel will not have to use nuclear weapons to obliterate Beirut, Damascus or Teheran the way the United States had to obliterate Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to neutralize Japans will to resist. Israel will, however, have to push on with ground and air strikes, at great cost and in the face of internatinlal condemnation, until Hezbollah is done. Israel has no more choice in the matter than the United States had in the Pacific.The threat cannot be allowed to remain, when its mere survival emboldens it and ensures it will be able to rebuild.



The twisted perception of Hezbollah asDavid to the Israeli Goliath -- a perversion of the reality in which Israel is vastly outnumbered, outgunned and surrounded, but more adept and capable that its foe-- positions Hezbollah as a winner in any conclusion short of its utter destruction.It offers a major symbolic victory to Iran and Syria, and will allow them to maintain a militarized proxy front in their war on Israel.It will embolden their actions in Iraq against the efforts of the United States and the Iraqi people to build a stable and sane democracy there.It will embolden Iran to continue to pursue its nuclear weapons program in defiance of international pressure.It will create a threat of war in the Middle East on a scale that would make the current troubles look like a picnic.



The pressures of European leaders and the United Nations for a quick fix -- an accommodation of evil of the sort they historically have prefered to acting with determination against a nascent threat -- must not be allowed to stop Israel, with our support, from completing this dirty job.

To end the present suffering of its people , Lebanon cannot be allowed to remain a defacto Shiite-extremist state, dominated by Syria and Iran. An international peacekeeping force cannot be brought in until the root of war is dug out, and Hezbollah is destroyed or effectively removed from Lebanon. That means that for now, as terrible as the toll has been, the use of human shields by Hezbollah cannot be a deterent to utterly exterminating Hezbollah as a political and miltary threat and just as significantly, as a symbol of resistance.



This war, like all just wars against aggression, must not end short of its logical conclusion. Its logical conclusion is the extermination of Hezbollah.


ttalady answered on 07/31/06:

If the destruction of Hezbollah is possible there better be some good minds out there thinking of who the next one will come out as the leader in terrorism. Just because you take out one group does not mean you crush the rest. Chances are you will make them stronger in their meaning to those that are facist is there ways.

Beyond these terrorist organizations these governments of Syria, Iran, ect must be dealt with. These are the money of the means. These governments must turn their backs on these groups, no cash given to them, no means of supporting them at all or themselves suffer the consiquences.

With the the UN will either be disolved or a major haul over needs to be done. Annan supports these terrorist funding governments and we call this United Nations? Looks more like bank full of laundering fools to me!

TTA

Question/Answer
Oldstillwild asked on 07/31/06 - right?

Killers cant be right,ever.
Any religion or philosophy ,from which people can derive the right to kill,cant be a right religion or a right philosophy,right?

ttalady answered on 07/31/06:

So I guess we should all just take a seat and hold hands.... Nice idea, don't see that happening, maybe in heaven such is possible. Justification as to why taking another life is judge by others as well as your God if you have one. I would never say that killing is right how ever I would have to say it can be justified. As in your life or mine, your life or many other lives, and to what is the circumstances of the problem.

From there the act will be judge and that's that.

TTA

Oldstillwild rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 07/27/06 - "War against Terrorism"...........................

It appears obvious that America, the UK and Israel are losing the "War against Terrorism". What, in your opinion must be done to accomplish this.

ttalady answered on 07/29/06:

The number way to loose a war is to loose the hearts and minds of those that believe in the cause in the first place. Support to the troops, the governments, and the funding needed to accomplish the task.

I will say as well that Iraqi's need to get in the game or call it. Put aside there personal beliefs for a moment and envision what we are offering them. They have a chance at a free society and the only one they need to be pointing fingers to is their own government. It is there job to finish this.

To win this war it starts with you and every individual. Put aside how dangerous this is, wondering if it is worth it, all the negative propaganda out there. I wrote Bush a month before the start of the Iraq war and told him if he does it do it right. I told him I support his effort in this and stand by that to this day even in question. War is ugly, deadly, and most of all it hurts. If people could just stop thinking,"But I deserve....". Then we can get it done!

TTA

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MicroGlyphics asked on 07/28/06 - Israeli-Arab Conflict

Why is it that if you want Israel to stop bothering people, you are considered to be anti-Semetic, yet if you want the Arabs to stop bothering people, you are considered to have "the right idea"?

The Israeli government would like nothing more then total genocide; yet when al-queda wants the flip side of this statement, the West's panties get in a bunch. Israel, al-queda, Hamas, and Hezbolla are all sponsors of terrorism, as is the United States (sic).

ttalady answered on 07/29/06:

Now hold on one minute. Who paints another country's flag at the doors of a school to teach the children to disgrace that country? Whom is calling others that hold other religious beliefs infidels? Just who justifies punishment on ones that do not believe as they do?

The US, um I believe we are the largest melting pot that has suceeded as a country, maybe not 100% but not everything is perfect ya know.

The problem is there is no problem. People killing eachother over some sand? Sure, in religion this is Holy land. How Holy can something be to have to have? In what book does it say that ownership of anything makes you a true believer and a giver to your religion?

Clue me in!

tta

MicroGlyphics rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MicroGlyphics asked on 07/26/06 - Would tensions in the Middle East be as high as it is now if the US hadn't invaded Iraq?

Now that the US has beaten the hornets' nest of the Middle East, the hornets are restless and stinging. The US is upset that it cannot seem to put the hornets back in the nest, and so continues to attack the nest directly and through proxy. While I agree that some hornets have been stirring for years and decades, would they be as agitated if the US hadn't bothered them?

The US has given as rationale WMD and 9/11 as provocations for having attacked the sovereign nation of Iraq, an impoverished and despotic yet secular state. None of this was proven true, so the rationale was shifted to Democracy, but the US does not respect a democracy when it isn't fashioned in a manner acceptable by the US, say, Iran, Lebanon, and Venezuela.

Soviet-style Communism was an abject failure in part by two large reasons: attempts to micro-manage the macro-economy (let's call this meddling), and offensive interference by Western powers (let's call this meddling). So, meddling appears to be at the root of failure. Why, then, have we not learnt our lessons and stopped meddling in the affairs of otherespecially sovereignnations?

Of course it should not be a secret that I am opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but that does not diminish the quality of the question: Would tensions in the Middle East be as high as it is now if the US hadn't invaded Iraq?

ttalady answered on 07/26/06:

Fine, no meddling in the affairs of others. Can I put my hard earned money back in my American pocket then? Can I stop seeing how these people are so.... poor that need help. The countries that starve them, abuse them, kill them for what?

No American money, you got a deal! We will find our way beyond oil, Walmart, ect. Some call it staying out of other peoples business, I thought the idea was to share and with sharing you take on giving back.

Lets just draw the lines, you live as you, I live as I. I am fine with that, don't call me up when you are thirsty, starving, need of money. The US tried is all I can say.

I am ready to face what is to come. It is nerve wrecking, but will happen. I will defend my ground.

Best to you,

tta

MicroGlyphics rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jackreade asked on 07/19/06 - A Challenge from Dershowitz

My argument is that by hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and the terrorists with a win-win option. I challenge the readers of this post to recommend to Israel better ways of responding to this challenge. What would you do? What would America do? What should a democracy do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How would you answer Prof. Dershowitz' challenge?

ttalady answered on 07/25/06:

Push the button! No one else will say it, it is going to come to this, who will push the button first?

Vietnam hurt the US, we know. Reagan helped with his democratic ways of working. Clinton made a mess out of a power and now we are here to face the Japanese again, in terrorist ways that is. Hiroshima did a number, why not say enough is enough and just push the button? You can not negotiate with ones that have nothing to negotiate. Iran first, Syria next, then lets take a look at the Saudi's.

Sometimes you have to spank to get attention.

TTA

isizathu rated this answer Bad/Wrong Answer
jackreade rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 07/19/06 - Somehow, logic has flown out the window............

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi argued, "A nation that can provide more than $300 billion for a war in Iraq can provide the money to get its people out of Lebanon".

I would agree that America should foot the bill for evacuation of citizens for whom America sent to Lebanon, but what of citizens with duel citizenship and in Lebanon by there own means. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for the evacuation of those who are there on vacation? In the beginning, the State Department was going to charge regular airfare but then dropped the plan. Somehow, logic has flown out the window.

ttalady answered on 07/19/06:

Hmmm, I wonder out of those duel citizens, how many just might be terrorists? I guess we just might find out huh! I heard on the news, therefore can not substaniate, that the US had warnings about going to Lebanon since May last year. Why should I pay for stupidity? Not even in money, why do I even have to hear about it? I do stupid things every day and guess whom pays and hears?

I believe she was also the one that called the helping of our American citizens over there nothing more than what happened with Katrina.

Common sense here I would say. Alert, do not travel to Lebanon, what would I do? Well I know darn well if I took the chance I would know I am in my own hands. Just vacation in another country is a risk, hello people.

I people that take those chances, get in a pickle, and then want a hand out. Oops, stupid is what stupid does. Welcome to the new generation of life! I will never rely on the government, I will take care of my own. Just common sense!

TTA

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 07/02/06 - ART:



Its pretty difficult to come up with a good definition of art. A recent attempt from John Carey in "What Good are the arts" is this: "A work of art is anything that anyone has ever considered a work of art, for whatever reason."

Do you have your own definition of art?

HANK

ttalady answered on 07/07/06:

My definition of art is something that gives one a feeling. Paintings, writers, singers, actors, martial arts, yoga, ect ect. Nature is art! Art is expression of something, a feeling or being. A showing of emotion and giving off an emotion. A simple or very difficult showing is the hardest part. It makes you want to venture into your soul and find an answer.

My Mother is an artist. She made me a painting for my birthday last year of a rolling ball. I opened it and was just "Wowed" with the colors. Then I started looking deeper to try and understand her state of mind painting a rolling ball surrounded in modern color. There is a hue of white that shines on the upper left as if a light where shining on it.

I call it "spectacular bordem". The feeling life is just rolling along, no bumps in the road, however the colors are of a wonderous nature. The painting itself is of great detail, concentrating on the colors, division of the colors are sharp with black used, the ball itself shows no division of color.

Anyway that's what I get out of it. I guess anything is art if you look deep enough into yourself!

Know that new born babies, 99.9% of the time are the ugliest looking things, baby pigs are cuter. Coned heads, wrinkled skin, usually blue or white in hue, eyes shut, belly buttons that look like an over sized wart, and just a screamin'. In the eye of a Mother, Father, Grandparents, the new born is the most beautiful thing in the world. In the eye of the beholder.

tta

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 07/06/06 - Evil and psychopathy

.........................................."A psychopath is defined as having no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lacking insight and any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone of any kind of love. It is thought that any emotions which the true psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience." (wikipedia)

Do you believe all evil behaviour is caused by psychiatric disorders, e.g. psychopathy?

ttalady answered on 07/07/06:

If all evil behavior is caused by psychiatric disorders then I guess every human has psychiatric disorders. How do you define evil? To a "tree hugger" I am evil for torturing worms as I poke them on a hook, catch a fish, kill it, and then eat it. I find abortion clinics and anyone that performs an abortion evil.

I guess the case I am supporting is that all humans contain a form of evil, whether it is evil in the form of a judgement by another or self accepted evil. We all have a form of evil behaviors, in conclusion we all do have some sort of emotional, mental, or physical disorder.

It has been studied that psychopaths are born with this disorder/disease. As children they are known to harm animals, cats, dogs, ect. There "thrill" in life is to injure and intentionally injure.

Evil can be spread from one to another as where a disorder can not, well maybe through DNA, but it's not contagious as evil is. It takes a very strong person to face an evil act and not give back an evil act.

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 07/03/06 - Should religious defamation be criminalized?

This is an issue in which several countries are struggling; a Danish newspaper ran a series of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in what many Muslims considered an offensive manner. One issue is in applying such a criminal offence; was the depiction of the Mohammad defamation; where would the line be drawn between criticism and defamation. What if the defamation (an attack on somebodys good name, character, or reputation- slander) is true; for instance, in the case of suicide bombers who are mandated by their religion to commit the act.

ttalady answered on 07/04/06:

Either way the line is drawn it must be equal for all. Call it mear criticism, make it a criminal offense, but do such for all religions! I was watching the news a couple of weeks ago about the group in Canada that were arrested, they were planning a terrorist attack. These people were known for protesting infront of Jewish places of worship as well as governmental buildings. Do I have the right to protest infront of a Muslim Mosque?

Maybe I do, maybe I do hold that right, how would that be accepted? I believe I would be arrested, viewed as prejudice, and in all thrown to the dogs.

Why is it in some public schools children are told to study the Muslim religion however the can not celebrate an American holiday called Christmas? Oh that's right, protect the minority and bash the majority.

All I ask for is equality!

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 07/04/06 - THIS IS NO TRICK QUESTION:


The other evening I had a friend over for supper. She helped me prepare the food. While doing so, she asked, "Honey, why are you using a dish towel with a hole in it?" I quickly responded by saying, "A towel with a hole in it can do the same chore as a towel without a hole."

Question: Is my answer common sense or philosophy?

HANK

ttalady answered on 07/04/06:

I would say that is a common sense answer that has philosophical meaning. Much as if you replied with, "This is my Holy towel", then again that would be being a smart you know what.

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 06/24/06 - Are Answerway's guidelines being observed here?

"Civility and courtesy

An answer to a question should be courteous, civil, and respectful. If the Expert is tempted to post something nasty, better to post nothing at all.

No Sniping at Other Experts

It is important to remember that the point of this site is to provide information in response to questions posed by users. Users will not be comfortable if the answers they receive contain potshots taken by one expert against another. If there are legitimate grounds for disagreement, or if it truly appears that another expert has given a faulty answer, courtesy should be used in noting such disagreement. This same principle applies in any rating or rating comment applied by one expert to another."

ttalady answered on 06/24/06:

Now I feel like I am at work, G rated, "Just be Nice" atmosphere. When brains colide they say stupid things. WHY DOES EVERYONE TAKE IT SO PERSONAL?

Maybe I don't belong here, I think I do and believe in my heart and soul I do however hurt feelings do not belong in philosophy. It is about life good and bad, trying to figure out how to change the bad into good. Disagree, yes that is good, don't take it to heart. LEARN FROM IT!

With that, pot shots, oh boy, work again. So.. competetive when WHY? Why pull an Ann Coulter, hey best example right now. If you are right, POST IT! Argue the post in your own post, don't bash, that is senseless, IN MY OPINION!

Debate should ALWAYS be open! It makes a better world!

tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 06/22/06 - What is the solution to this predicament?

.........."We know that we are animals, parts of the natural order, bound by laws which tie us to the material forces which govern everything. We believe that the gods are our invention, and that death is exactly what it seems. Our world has been disenchanted and our illusions destroyed. At the same time we cannot live as though that were the whole truth of our condition. Even modern people are compelled to praise and blame, love and hate, reward and punish. Even modern people. . . are aware of self, as the centre of their being; and even modern people try to connect to other selves around them. We therefore see others as if they were free beings, animated by a self or soul, and with more than a worldly destiny. If we abandon that perception, then human relations dwindle into a machine-like parody. . . the world is voided of love, [moral] duty and [aesthetic] desire, and only the body remains."

Roger Scruton, An Intelligent Person's Guide To Modern Culture, p68.

What is your opinion?

ttalady answered on 06/24/06:

My oIpinion "We are animals, part of the natural order", is false. Man is cruel, destructive, and nothing of nature. We are the parasites of nature that which gives it no meaning or purpose. There is nothing natural about us, nature makes us feel that way, gives us hope, happiness, and most of all life.

I would bet I am closer to nature than you. I fish and eat my catch, I kill it, skin it, and thank God for it. When it rains I am thankful, when it is hot I thank the sun and jump in the frog filled pond, when I have a smoke I put the butt in a bag. Am I perfect when it comes to my land, my nature, NO. My hair stands on areosol spray, my jeep runs on gas. I have a ways to go...

I have a dream, it is of the children... Hunt, fish, respect your enviroment. Understand it and love it, it is your life, your happiness, and most of all your future. Nature is pure, we could never be a part of that at this point and time, maybe in that past and maybe in the future, not now, that is fooling ourselves to think that.

Best to you,

TTA

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 06/22/06 - What is the solution to this predicament?

.........."We know that we are animals, parts of the natural order, bound by laws which tie us to the material forces which govern everything. We believe that the gods are our invention, and that death is exactly what it seems. Our world has been disenchanted and our illusions destroyed. At the same time we cannot live as though that were the whole truth of our condition. Even modern people are compelled to praise and blame, love and hate, reward and punish. Even modern people. . . are aware of self, as the centre of their being; and even modern people try to connect to other selves around them. We therefore see others as if they were free beings, animated by a self or soul, and with more than a worldly destiny. If we abandon that perception, then human relations dwindle into a machine-like parody. . . the world is voided of love, [moral] duty and [aesthetic] desire, and only the body remains."

Roger Scruton, An Intelligent Person's Guide To Modern Culture, p68.

What is your opinion?

ttalady answered on 06/24/06:

My oIpinion "We are animals, part of the natural order", is false. Man is cruel, destructive, and nothing of nature. We are the parasites of nature that which gives it no meaning or purpose. There is nothing natural about us, nature makes us feel that way, gives us hope, happiness, and most of all life.

I would bet I am closer to nature than you. I fish and eat my catch, I kill it, skin it, and thank God for it. When it rains I am thankful, when it is hot I thank the sun and jump in the frog filled pond, when I have a smoke I put the butt in a bag. Am I perfect when it comes to my land, my nature, NO. My hair stands on areosol spray, my jeep runs on gas. I have a ways to go...

I have a dream, it is of the children... Hunt, fish, respect your enviroment. Understand it and love it, it is your life, your happiness, and most of all your future. Nature is pure, we could never be a part of that at this point and time, maybe in that past and maybe in the future, not now, that is fooling ourselves to think that.

Best to you,

TTA

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Erewhon asked on 06/20/06 - PHILOSOPHY - how do you define philosophy?




What is your definition of what 'philosophy' is and what it isn't?


ttalady answered on 06/24/06:

For me, it is the selfish love I have for my brain, body, and everything around me. Philosophy is what a minority desires in life and the majority is scared of. The truth, thoughts, is that not what our life is? To look at life like it really is, point blank, but wanting the reason behind it. Why? Why are we here, what is our destiny in life, what is to become of us.

The ones that think this, believe in this mind set we are in, are special. College degree or not, we are sheep dogs in this world.

If you wish to read about the sheep, sheep dog, and the wolf let me know. It brought me meaning of whom I am.

Best to you,

TTA

Erewhon rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
jackreade asked on 06/23/06 - Liberalism and Religion and Coulter's Book

"......the main thesis of her(Coulter's) book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is that liberalism professes hostility toward religion yet exhibits many of the practical attributes of religion, such as the acceptance of certain propositions mainly on faith.
But such faith, she continues, doesn't recognize a godhead, hence the liberal variant is a precarious and ultimately self-contradictory faith. The crux of her extended rant is that liberals are disingenuous about their tenets of faith: they pretend to be tolerant, and yet they impose their dogmas on others. They purportedly adhere to a wall of separation between church and state, and yet they enlist the state to promote their particular sacred cows. She takes liberals to task time and again for such hypocrisy, arguing, for instance, that the state-sponsored adherence to evolution in the name of scientific rationality actually betrays several unexamined core beliefs. The bulk of the book is an expos of others' blind spots. When she finally shows her own cards, she seems to be claiming that her faith is, by contrast, more admirable because it explicitly acknowledges that everything depends on the existence of God. God is her trump card.

If Coulter had done her homework (or if her publisher had held her to customary research standards), she might have realized that others have made such a case against liberalism in much more elegant and compelling terms. In fact, such an argument against liberalism has been a commonplace in democratic theory for some time, and thoughtful folks (left and right) have already moved two or three steps beyond it.

The case is hardly new. Karl Marx said much the same thing as Annie-Come-Lately Coulter in his famous essay, "On the Jewish Question." Liberalism in its public face feigns neutrality toward all worldviews, Marx argued, and yet it enacts insidiously, under a secular cover, many unacknowledged biases and pursues them with religious ferocity.

Likewise, John Stuart Mill, the foremost proponent of political liberalism in the 19th century, would provisionally agree with Coulter's definition of liberalism: "Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man's immortal soul." The central tenets of liberalism, liberty of thought and expression, require, for Mill, vigilant self-skepticism about dogma, especially religious dogma. Mill would thus challenge Coulter's haughty self-assurance about the truth of Christianity (albeit in a much more civil tone than she deploys to shatter others' presumptions of infallibility). Allow me to quote a passage from Mill's On Liberty at some length, because it seems to speak to Coulter's condition, if I may say so:

"By Christianity I here mean what is accounted such by all churches and sects--the maxims and precepts contained in the New Testament. These are considered sacred, and accepted as laws, by all professing Christians. Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those laws. The standard to which he does refer it, is the custom of his nation, his class, or his religious profession. He has thus, on the one hand, a collection of ethical maxims, which he believes to have been vouchsafed to him by infallible wisdom as rules for his government; and on the other, a set of every-day judgments and practices, which go a certain length with some of those maxims, not so great a length with others, stand in direct opposition to some, and are, on the whole, a compromise between the Christian creed and the interests and suggestions of worldly life. To the first of these standards he gives his homage; to the other his real allegiance. All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and those who are ill-used by the world; that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven; that they should judge not, lest they be judged; that they should swear not at all; that they should love their neighbour as themselves; that if one take their cloak, they should give him their coat also; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they would be perfect, they should sell all that they have and give it to the poor. They are not insincere when they say that they believe these things. They do believe them, as people believe what they have always heard lauded and never discussed. But in the sense of that living belief which regulates conduct, they believe these doctrines just up to the point to which it is usual to act upon them. The doctrines in their integrity are serviceable to pelt adversaries with; and it is understood that they are to be put forward (when possible) as the reasons for whatever people do that they think laudable". (On Liberty, chapter 2).


John Rawls񟬣 classic, A Theory of Justice, which became the liberal bible (in academic and legal circles) for many decades, also seems quite vulnerable to Coulter's belated critique: Rawls, in good liberal fashion, maintained that the state ought to adopt a position of strict neutrality toward various religious views. Many post-Rawlsian commentators, from feminists to neo-conservatives, have pointed out that the liberal claim to state-neutrality is untenable and even duplicitous...." etc etc etc. Have to let the rest go due to length...by Professor John Seely, from blogging.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is it that these issues being played out in such an ugly manner today decided intellectually in the 19th Century?

That Christians don't practice what they preach(Mill's comments).

That Liberals are dogmatic and hostile to religionists?

What does Marx mean whe he says the "Jewish Question"?

Thanks in advance for comments about this.

jack

ttalady answered on 06/24/06:

Ms. Ann, oh Boy! A God loving, Conservative, Tradionalist, and tend to vote Republican,yes I am, however she is just funny to me! I did not read your whole posting, the name itself just relates to the subject, RADICALS!

If you can point fingers then you have a self involve problem, if you can listen, accept a difference, and still hold on to your beliefs you are strong and set. Bashing does nothing, it is grade school name calling. You want the ball, say how you are just right, do not compare you to the other. Ms. Coulter loses her own battles, but she is still funny to watch!

TTa

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
jackreade rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 06/06/05 - What is character

What is it to say, ones own sense of character and, is there individual character or just character molded by society?

ttalady answered on 06/07/05:

Well you put the word sense in there. I take it as more of a feeling of someone. A pure judgement of another based on how they present themselves in words and actions.

My sister calls her self a bit**, as a sense of her own character. Others around her and myself see her as sick, mentally. I guess you could say character is molded by society however it is true that to judge or characterize oneself is quite impossible.

It's hard enough trying to figure out one's own feelings, bringing character into the light would be chaious!

They say one can find more out about a person by looking at whom they "hang" out with.

TTA

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 05/24/05 - How did morality originate?

...

ttalady answered on 05/24/05:

Okay, I'll give it a shot! In my opinion, the orgin of morality was and is in the mind of one and grew, as that one made little ones in which carried on said "morals" aka rules in life. They change in those little ones as the one before, they are not set rules necessarily, they grow as we grow.

Almost like going back through your ancestors, where did it all start?

I wonder what I am compared to them, my ancestors? Time has change morals. What is "acceptable" or "not acceptable". My personal moral derived from my family partially but more so my own experiances and life day in day out.

We are given structure, a plan as children, then we grow, experiance, and ulimately anyone's set morals are from there own mind. The one picks and chooses. The one really originates there own morals in life.





tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 05/10/05 - To what extent is happiness attainable?

...

ttalady answered on 05/12/05:

True happiness right? That happiness that brings you to feeling satisfied, whole, real. Hmmmm......

Your posts bring out the best of me!

I was driving home from work last week and saw a sign by the entrance of a church. I have no idea what religion that church was of, however the sign had a saying on it. They change it weekly and for some reason this one I was really having a hard time reading all the way through. It was longer than the usual "Love thy Lord". I would catch a word here and there until I hit "happiness". Then I had to slow down from my 50 mph and find out what this sign had to say about happiness. Now I might not get the wording 100% however it said something to the effect:

You know you have true happiness when you are traveling through a detour and enjoy the scenery.

The sign was not that long with wording but that is what it said. How true, how well that can be applied to a simple car ride or that detour in life that happens like all the time. Maybe just seems we are always on that detour!

So I guess that is how one can really answer that question. Can you enjoy the scenery even on the detour? To take the good with the bad and know that eventually you'll get there where there may be.

Best to you,
TTA

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
DesertRose asked on 05/11/05 - Other catagories.

What are some good catagories to sign up in on answerway. I think I might like to expand alittle. :-)

Sara

ttalady answered on 05/12/05:

I personally have enjoyed the spiritual board. Not even a practicing anything when it comes to religion, then again you don't have to practice a specific religion to be spiritual.

This board seems to be more of the members conversing. Kind of an open board, all opinions welcome! We have discussed everything from day in day out trials in life to politics, to serious issues of the heart and soul. It has been quite dead lately so a new board member might spark it up some.

Check it out! I believe on the home page you choose society and culture and from there scroll down to spirituality. It is an open board so you don't really have to join it if you don't want to.

One thing that really helps with conversing on this board is to not take what may seem as a judgement so personal. We learn from eachother even if we don't agree. Most of the post again are from just the board members. We debate, we support, and we enjoy eachother's postings.

Up to you but you are welcome to check it out and post if you would like.

Best to you,
TTA
Jen

DesertRose rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
MicroGlyphics asked on 04/18/05 - Why is Democracy desirable?

Admittedly, this is a baited question, but with all of this talk about the spreading of Democracy as desirable, I couldnt resist. What is the best form of government and why?

Of course Plato argued that a Republic was preferable to Democracy, but I cant agree with this either. Aristocracies and Theocracies dont seem to work any better than Monarchies and Oligarchies. Anarchy doesnt seem to be a viable solution.

Why do I feel Democracy is not the way to go? Let me simplify it, as theorists often are wont to do. To start, let us presume we have a population of 3. I choose an odd number so we dont have to content with a tie. Let us presume we will democratically decide on a purchase decision, say, of an automobile. So we vote.
What color should the car be? We each have an opinion. A wants a red car. B wants a green car. C wants a black car. OK. Not a good start. At least 2 of these people will have to settle for a sub-optimal solution, perhaps all 3 if they decide on beige so as not to favour anyone in particular. Now what?

Automobiles can be purchased with manual or automatic transmission. A and C prefer automatic, but B prefers manual, so he is outvoted. B is left with a sub-optimal solution. Perhaps he can at least be consoled by having the car be green.

Well, now let them decide on the type of car. A prefers a roomy car, while B and C favour economy. So, we are now at a point where we are considering an economical, if less roomy, car with automatic transmission. Now, A sees this as a sub-optimal solution.

Well, perhaps the last decision point will be for the interior. Of what material should the seats be made? A and B prefer leather, but C prefers cloth, as he prefers not to use animal products. However, C has to settle for a sub-optimal solution.

So, in the end we have a system where everyone ends up with a sub-optimal result. Hardly a great system to be sure. Does it matter that at least these people had a say in he decision-making process. I dont think so.
What if a beneficent Autocrat had decided that these people would be purchasing a roomy red car with automatic transmission, and leather seats? Sure, I know I am stacking the deck here, but I am authoring this, so I will take literary license. In this case, A would actually have his optimum preferencelocal optima, and B and C would not be any worse off.

When de Tocqueville said a Democracy requires an educated populace, he is referring to education in the form of political education. There is too much information, misinformation, and disinformation about to allow for a truly educated decision in this Media-Industrial age.

Moreover, it was Franklin who said that a democracy wont vote its rights away. We see this all around us, the epitome of this being evidenced by the passing (and general acceptance) of the Patriot Act in the US.
So, again I ask, "Why is Democracy desirable"?

ttalady answered on 04/18/05:

In my opinion on "Why is Democracy desirable", simply put, it once was!

There is not a single truly perfect system and most likely there never will be one. My personal comfort with Democracy are the freedoms that are entailed in such. Sure there are freedoms in other forms of government however this one fits me. I often wonder why so many others from other countries want such?

The truly beautiful thing about Democracy is the change it goes through. Not long ago blacks were slaves, women did not have the right to vote, things have changed. On the bad side, oh where do I start. Controlling population by means of abortion, drugs, gangs, money controlling our government (and not taxpayer dollars).

Its all taking the good with the bad. My voice as a voter at this point satisfies my living even though I can not control the world government. I have a say in my town, my land, my house.

I believe in a Democracy the community does control more than the head hanchos with the say. They focus on numbers, I'm a number!!

tta

MicroGlyphics rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/19/04 - What is your concept of an ideal world?

...

ttalady answered on 10/27/04:

When flowers grow up side down so we know when they are ready. When the mad hatter stops running around my tree asking for tea. And when my mother grows up to become a woman and allows me to become a better woman than her!

Such a world we live in!

tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 10/22/04 - Thinking about success

This is some reflection of mine: there are three ways of thinking about success (in life):

First it's about achievement- you do or you get something tangible, but this is mainly for material goals, like doing a project, publishing a book, or buying a house.

The second is being "on the way" of something. Which can be for material goals, as well as social and spiritual, like to be on the way of making money, or making friends, or bringing up children, acquiring more knowledge and more faith.

The third is simply keeping (not losing) something; you do not lose your purity, innocence, satisfaction and maybe physical fitness!

Any thoughts or comments about this?

Hussein

ttalady answered on 10/27/04:

Have a beer with good friends and enjoy their company!

There may be a day when you don't see them and they don't see you!

tta

hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 10/26/04 - Is religion a theoretical ideology?

Which do you beleive religion to be more closely related to: a philosophy or a theoretical ideology?

ttalady answered on 10/27/04:

Hey DC!

Ideology works for me. Religion PROVES fault of it's own. Religion is suppose to be that of forgiveness, yet not, religion is that of something more than of one, yet not, being me works for me and not something I am not! Religion does not accept, it makes one.

I am me! I know who I am. I have much to learn however from my families hands!

tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/01/04 - How would you console a bereaved friend?

.......with regard to beliefs and values...

ttalady answered on 10/07/04:

To be in silence is to be respectful and consoling. There are times in life, same beliefs or not, that there are just not proper words, words that you know could not come out right, would not be taken right, ect ect. Silence is just as nice with a hug as words can be with out a hug.

Personally I have found that physical contact out ways verbal contact. That there are times we can over come our thoughts and be loving people just in the sense of touch. We seem to fear our own thoughts that we judge others based on our thoughts when maybe we all just need touch, not thought.

I don't know, think about it, then take time to shake someone you really respects hand and let them know it. It is a hard thing to do but all worth it!

tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 07/02/04 - How is morality related to good and bad?

How is morality related to good and bad?

It is my assumption that good and bad is inherent in nature while morality is a subjective contrivance we use to determine what is right and wrong. Good and bad remains constant in nature while morality is culture bound.

Any thoughts welcomed

ttalady answered on 07/02/04:

Well in my opinion morality is the deciding play in what ends up good or bad. I don't see how you find that good and bad is constant in nature? You are seeing such from the past with out forseeing the future.

Then again you must be taking mankind out of the loop of nature!

I always thought morals were more of opinions. Something that you were taught and brought up on. I have since changed my opinion on that being morals are more like a destiny of one person. All a part of growing up, growing old, truly die-ing.

It must just have to do with emotions. To kill, to hunt, such is many times look down upon when man does such. Being we are suppose to "feel...., understand....., pain". Then comes in the seeing of good old Discovery Channel where there is everything from the hunt to birth being shown. From an insect eating the male after intercourse for the sake of the nutrients given to the eggs she will lay. It is all a cycle! Life, dying, birth, death. Our days are all numbered!

The words alone "good/bad" are based on emotion. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. Only time will tell and with that morality and opinions must be respected in each person that carries such. I love it when people tell me I should not judge, "It's none of your business", ect ect. Is that not what they just did? Judged, made it their business on an opinion which is justified by being human, alive?

I judge lest I know I am judged. It is my God for saken right to do so and hope my words are heard before my time!

And DC, never assume, it make an ASS,U,ME! I was taught that from an Algebra teacher in high school and you know what, it is true. To stand ones ground in belief, thought, and fact is to be knowledgeable in life whether right or found wrong, you are still knowledgable. As for many years the world was "assumed" to be flat until one man with beliefs and thoughts decided to make them a**** of themselves!

Take care DC!

TTA

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 07/02/04 - How does evil originate?

...

ttalady answered on 07/02/04:

I truly believe it is something we are born with. Not that we are all evil in our souls however that every person in this world has the capability to be evil. It all depends on the influences and actions that are brought upon us in life.

It is odd how even emotions play such a role in evil. As where I myself have had to ponder such thoughts. Nothing more than emotions when 9/11 happened, the beheading of captives by terrorists, ect. How my nerves would hit such a high that I thought I wanted to personally kill these evil doers. To personally torture as what was done to the innocent ones. Then I reflected on that and came to the conclusion that such an act would make me as evil as they are. Maybe even worse being such an evil act by me would be purly out of emotion.

I don't believe evil originates from emotion however does grow from emotions. Then again it all depends on how you are looking at evil. Evil in humans? Some of the most horrific acts I have seen in life is that of nature. How whales of different breeds will circle and eventually separate a baby from it's mother to feed on the baby.

My female malamute killed a new born deer just a month ago. The friendliest of dogs, great with people and children. She just has this very wild wolf like tendencies about her. She was punish and shown her killing with her punishment in hopes she will understand she can not do such, for the sake of her life as well. Then I posed the question to my hunter man, "Why is it as man we can accept man hunts, but as man we can not accept nature does the same? Are we not both of the same making in life?".

It has gotten clearer and clearer to me that the relationship between man and nature is one in the same. Man expects more out of man, that somehow with the larger brain we should be the almighty in life. For an example, to think that that rubber worm you use to fish really fakes the fish out! Ummm if I had a very limited supply of food and 50 brothers and sisters hangin with me all the time, a rubber steak in my face, YEAH I AM TAKING IT!

Obviously with emotions there are ones that counter act evil thoughts. All it takes is truly thinking about such emotion and rationalizing the sense of evil we all have.

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
XCHOUX asked on 06/01/04 - Is the Universe a "Machine"

and "God" the emergy?

ttalady answered on 06/02/04:

You're PREGO?? Congratulations and happy pushing when ever that may be!!:)

I believe that the universe is a plant or animal. Back in 8th grade we studies the makes up of plants and animals and by God I wish I could remember all of the factors. In general there were working cells and each cell had a job of it's own. Sure there were multiple cells that were the same however in the universe we only know of so many planets! We only know of so... many universes and most are mear guesses! Some go on the BIG BANG theory. Ok, I can agree with that being that cells do split!

I guess I am just a nature freak and like the thought that we are all apart of nature. It sounds like you have been watching the Matrix? Boy, if life is that complicated as the movie then I would rather stay un-knowing.

God's speed!

TTA

XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 05/10/04 - In what situation would you sacrifice your life?

...

ttalady answered on 05/13/04:

Very interesting question, complicated as well. See I believe that we all sacrifice our lives due to situations. Well according to doctors whom are suppose to be experts on how our living source works, the body.

I am sure you are talking on the level of dying for another, like jumping in front of a car, taking a gun shot, ect. I look at it as everyone does sacrifice their lives for something and in the final destination of passing it just might determine your destination.

Years ago doctors were telling everyone to take it easy on eggs. Somehow eggs and the body don't mix well therefore they attribute something natural to heart disease, high cholestrol, ect. Meat was bad as well. Now a days, being obesity his astronomical doctors are telling them to eat all they want in these foods and stay way from the veggie. Good old carbo diet. They say, do not smoke, do not drink heavily, stay away from coffee, ect ect. They say exercise is good however most that exercise do not properly replenish their bodies with the vitamins they loose during such. A couch potato will live longer than one that exercises daily due to not loosing needed vitamins. So one that wishes not to be fat exercises and feels good from it. Maybe never knowing that they are sacrificing their own life by doing such.

One of the oldest living woman in the world has wine every day, smokes, eats what she wishes, and most of all just loves life. She moderates everything she does except for moderating enjoying life.

SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN TO ME!

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
drgade asked on 03/09/04 - Re: ttlady "Bringing one to believe."

Re: ttlady "Bringing one to believe."

If you had been listed as an expert on the other Board, I would have contacted you there. And since Anwerway doesn't have private contacts; fellow philosophers please excuse my encroachment.

Knowing the voice of God is not easy. More than that, it is difficult. But we do have promises concerning His prompting.

Jesus says that His sheep hear His voice and they follow Him. But it is unlikely that a sheep recognizes the shepherd until they have learned to trust him to lead as the 23rd Psalm says. But as we trust and learn that when we ask for an egg, He will not give us a serpent...and that He will make all things work for the good of those who love Him, His voice become more distinct from the things of our will, intellect and emotion(the things of our own soul-psyche)

And yes, there is more to life than we often are willing to see. Another promise given to us is the abundant life. If we doubt it, we make the abundant life hide from our view and so doubt that it exists for us.

God's timing is always a problem with us, not with Him, but with us. We like one hour shows with a happy ending or even an hour and a half movie which concludes. They used to have "serial" movies and books, probably before your time. But in our age, patience (machrothumay-"longsuffering") is not in vogue. So if it doesn't happen NOW, it probably isn't God.

I always remember that the promise of the land of Canaan to Abraham - His decendents. had to wait hundreds of years because the " iniquity of the Moabites is not yet full".


ttalady answered on 04/10/04:

Hello! Yes, I had to see what has been going on even though there is a certain guilt I have in such.

My past month of "no computer" has been quite enlightening as well as so... meaningful in me. How hard it is not to share yet share. To explain that is hard, very hard.

Anyway, you question I do not find clear, maybe just a statement in a mock of me or a praise. Either way, being I do not understand the wording, I will take it as a well intentioned belief just to know in good or bad it is something that made you write such!

May peace and God be with you!

drgade rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 03/08/04 - The Passion is a hoot.

The Passion is a hoot.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1159068,00.html

ttalady answered on 03/09/04:

It makes me wonder who has passion in life? You? The media? Ones that just like to bash something that is beyond what THEY KNOW, FEEL, THINK!

Ahhhhh the true showing of a fact in life, maybe not everyone's King, but the FACT is it did happen.

There was no "hoot" about it. I walked in with fear, little expectation, and really an open mind to something I do not practice let alone believed in. Walked out with no fear, just love, wonderment, and more to believe in even if I still do not know if he was God's child. The movie gave me so... much to think about, so... much to wonder, so... much meaning to live and try to live with meaning in one's life.

I have more tolerance for others, more compassion for what I do not know, and the want and need of understanding why I would feel such from a movie. I wish I could kiss Mel, on the cheek, for him bringing in such light into my life.

God bless you Jon!

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Jon1667 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 03/03/04 - What is love?

...

ttalady answered on 03/04/04:

It is just right. Good or bad it is just right.

It is everyday when I come home and my two precious babies (pup dogs) waiting at the door, jumping, all excited because Mom is home, and sure enough she will give us treats! It is getting married on land that is ours, that we both charish in our hearts, it is my Mother putting up with my NEED to talk when she is hungery. It is that memory of taking on deep water at 10 to save my brother that was being pulled away from the beach by under tow. It is forgiving, not forgetting. It is just one simple person trying to make good heart, head, and lessons learned decisions.

Love is giving with out expectations. Love is the total confusion in life, but being able to sit on the front porch and smile. It is sneezing and either wishing for another just to wake up or wish not to have a tantrum of sneezes. Being able to laugh at yourself, others, and just laugh. Love is to know someone's got your back however you have their's first.

The word "love" is over rated in my opinion because love is life. It is a decision on if you believe, if you choose to show or not, to actually think such a word MEANS something! Love is a belief!

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Diamind asked on 03/03/04 - Is life fair?
---
I hear a lot about the idea that everyone can be everyone he wants to be if

Is life fair?
---
I hear a lot about the idea that everyone can be everyone he wants to be if he puts his mind to it, therefore life is fair and if somebody is unhappy, it is because he doesn't work hard enough etc. But I dont think it is true. Imagine that someone invented pills, which make a person smarter for 50%, make him work 50% harder and increase other positive features by 50%. This will not change overal picture. Blue-collar workers will not become white collar ones as most of them want, because other people will become 50% smarter as well. Even if there is no pills, imagine that everyone decided to put his mind on something. It will be the same effect as with pills. My theory is that there is a competition in the society. Everyone works as hard as he can and as smart as he can be. There will always be custodians no matter how everyone works and study hard to become somebody. Do you think that life is fair then? I would agree that life is fair, meaning everyone has equal opportunity to become what he wants to be in the society, where robots serve humans and nobody has to do what they dont want to do. The food is gathered and processed buy very smart robots and humans only sleep, eat and do what they want. In this society you can be whoever you want to be, this world may have all the population as doctors or lawers or whatever. In our world though there is suply and demand laws, rich have more power and privilegies to become what they want. It is not fair society in my opinion. It is still close to the animal world, where the fittest survives. It is impossible for everyone to be a say doctor, because infinite number of doctors means infinitely low salary for them and therefore all the people would die. Do you agree with me?

ttalady answered on 03/04/04:

"Fair", is that like something you go to every year to gorge on the dough bread? Just kiddin'! Fairness has nothing to do with life, only dreams! That seems like the only time when such a word comes up. Your rant on just simple fairness makes me wonder what you really focus on in your life?


I know of a 14 year old girl that has died twice, came back, but litterally her heart stopped, she was called "dead", and she is sick with something the doc's have NO IDEA what it is. Is that FAIR? 14 years old, never even had the chance to think of what you find in the word FAIRNESS, however she is dealt a hand that only God has a hand in. Hey, belief cures alot as well as prayer.

I have yet to figure out if mankind was blessed with emotion or damned with emotion. Nature is the only way to see life through clear eyes. Do you think it is fair when a wolf in a pack gets sick they kill it? Do you find it fair that certain spiders eat the males after having ocha goonie goonies? The cycle of life however we were given EMOTIONS which is the only factor that separates us from the animals.

Life was never intended to be fair, it was intended, for mankind, to be a struggle, to find the groove you fit, and to try and find just contentment.

If you can find to focus just on what you are, what you find fits you, then you are set. Forget fairness, life is not fair, you are the only one that can make it as wonderful as it is!

tta

Diamind rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 02/11/04 - Argumentum ad hominem

I often hear complaints that an argument is ad hominem, but what does that mean? Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man." is there a time and place for name-calling?

ttalady answered on 02/14/04:

"If I listen long enough to you..... ect ect..Someone like you makes it hard to live with out someone else, someone like you makes it easy to give.... never thinking about myself". Yo, ad hominem! I just love them!

The typical woman, she is feeling "left out". Hey me femalia.

Next time just do the "feeling" thing. That real mushy stuff that is holy emotional and see the reponse! LOL, bring coffee and something to use as a punching bag. That way there is true bonding going on, if you wish for such.

I alway heard such words as "ad hominem attacks". Hmmmm!?

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 02/13/04 - Why be moral?

...

ttalady answered on 02/14/04:

Excellent question! For myself it is to be as constant in my life as possible. To allow the little flibberly jibbets to happen however to actually take a look at them and learn from them.

Something that I relate it to is when parents question themselves in doing right with and by their child. When it comes to punishment, rewards, the general day in and day out of teaching and rearing a child. My sister has none of this. She has never had morals however just has experiance from her prior child whom is in my parents custody. She is a flibberty jibbet every day and bases her decision on only what FEELS right not really what may be RIGHT! Therefore she is the same person she was many years ago, living the same sad life, and most likely the loneliness person I have ever know being she has never liked herself.

Morals provide a structure for whatever life one chooses. The hardest test in oneself is holding true to the structure one decides to make. There are so... many times there is that tempt or possibility of "chaning terms". Almost like you are backing down on a deal that you made with yourself. That is the worst however some how a person that has truly set morals in life finds there way out of it. All just a part of learning, loving, and growing in life.

I truly feel sorry for ones that have not found morals in life. Their own beliefs that they stick to or atleast try there darndest to. What many consider "a push over", "the best person to drink with", or "the gossip queen/king", which you never tell anything to! I mean nothing because it because there next object in having a conversation with a stranger! LOL

Morals are the structure of ones life and a true start from sand into a sand castle.

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
XCHOUX rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 01/12/04 - Is there a sixth sense?

....

ttalady answered on 01/16/04:

Long time no talk! Busy with the closing of 2003 stuff, work ya know!

There are many senses beyond that of sight, sound, touch, ect ect. Feeling is a sense we do not trust. Men especially being they are more of the mind in soul. To have a gut feeling about something. Not a thought just like something pops up and there is this weird gut feeling about it. Exciting or scary. Then you do as you thought and sure enough that gut feeling was right. Whether good or bad we tempt it just to see if it is true. If it happens.

I went to a psychic once and she told me things that did happen and had already happpened. Imagine this. I was 22-ish at the time, about a year and a half prior I had wrecked my snowmobile and my right knee made contact with a very large rock. I was lucky that nothing was broken let alone really messes up however had issues when it come to the nerves on the knee cap. I could walk just fine, could totally function, the only issue I had was kneeling down. When I went in and sat with Paula she automatically put her hand on my knee and told me that I had to go to the doctors again and get it fixed. I go through my head time and time again how she could know but there is no way. She does not accept you giving her your last name when you make an appt. First name basis only. Then she spoke of my now fiances father, we were just dating then. The Cancer he died from. Then my grandmother. A grandmother that died when my mother was 18. She spoke of a woman with beautiful dark brown hair with hands going back and forth in the water. She spoke of a broach my mother has of her's.

I wish not to go back for the plain fact that it was too much info and I wish to give my sixth sense a chance in life. It was fun let alone almost spookie. If you really question this and not for conversation you would seek your own senses and see what happens. It is possible to be outside of your mind and trust your gut feelings.

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 01/06/04 - OPINION OF JEWS!


Why do many people dislike Jews? The ones I've met in many places were fine people ... dutiful and intelligent! What's the hang-up?

HANK

ttalady answered on 01/08/04:

You know Hank, I often wondered that myself until recently. Not that I have any differences with Jews, let me explain.

I work for a small company which for years has had a Christmas party. Granted it was just a holiday drink and be merry party however always called it the annual Christmas party. This last year it was brought to the attention of the boss that there was an issue with the celebrations we celebrate in the office. Birthdays, with a simple card and two scratch off tickets, employee day, pre-turkey day, ect ect. They had hired a girl of the Jehova (mis-spelled I am sure) Witness faith. I still have no idea what the faith is about, I just put it with the people that like to bother you during vacation, the airports, or at home passing out flyers of some sort. So there was a BIG oops on her birthday when she was given a "happy birthday" comment, a card, ect. Come to find out that faith does not celebrate such. I guess they do not believe in such. I can understand however now our office has turned "politically correct". There is almost a fear of what is said about anything that has to do with faith due to this one inncodent which I think should have never been one.

I often fear that of the secularist. That as much as it is a necessity to not intrude your religion and beliefs on others that you should still be able to show and exhibt such. If one does not like such, do not look. It seems more and more faiths that are not about a God or Jesus are demanding that we can not hold such believes and true love for such anywhere but our homes.

I ask, if ones do not pratice such faiths of a God or Jesus, celebrations, ect why strip that from ones that do, when if you don't believe then it should not bother one? It truly makes me wonder how strong one's belief can be in any religion if they do not have room for ones that do not believe in theirs?

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 12/27/03 - Is size related to significance?

..........................................................It is often argued that in the immensity of the universe life on this planet has little or no significance. Has much weight do you attach to this argument?.......................................................

ttalady answered on 12/27/03:

Well is it not the small things in life that matter? For instance, blood cells, molecules, seeds, fungi, ect ect in purportion could be considered that of the Earth/people. No one knows what exactly our plant really is. Could it not be a plant cell to something way greater than anything imagined? Could it not be a living cell in something beyond what out little brains could even come up with. If this statement had any hold to it then we must laugh off our blood cells our mass of brain tissue for being it's size compared to our bodies it has no significance!

The question is, what would happen to the universe if ever Earth were no longer? I believe it would create quite the change due to the orbits, the moon, if one planet goes it would make a great mess of others!

Gguru rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 12/06/03 - Evil and G-d

If evil exists, an all knowing G-d would indeed know that evil exists. An all powerful G-d would be able to prevent it occuring; and an all powerful G-d would not want it to exist. Yet evil continues to occur. Could it be then that G-d does not exist, or if He does, then is He not as omniscient and omnipotent as some claim?

ttalady answered on 12/06/03:

Have you ever played a game of chess, not on the computer, a real game of chess with another. Where every move you make the other makes a move which could help you in the long run or end your game in the long run. You as a player in this game have every power of your decision. You decide how the game is played, if you loose, if you win. You place the pieces on the board and many times the strategy you use can become the fact you loose the game. You as one of the players control your strategy, you being the almighty, you being the winner in the end.

You loose some games you win some games. Such is life! Such is nature! I personally wonder more about what evil teaches one than the fact it is.

I know many relate to God of that of a man however if you question the fact of one should you not question the form of one. As in I always say "He/She/it". Just being correct if you say G-D.

I believe if more people ventured on the nature side in life their questions would be answered. See life in progress and what the deal is. Then you find belief, hope, and further question to facts. Belief is not going to church every Sunday, reading the bible and knowing it by heart, even repenting for sins everytime one is made. Belief is what you give into with in yourself. What you can relate to as well as what you question. That God is perfect, well I don't believe that. God is the closest to perfection in a belief and/or thing however I believe God only looses when the one or many do not believe in something. I have yet to find just one person that does not have beliefs, just one.

Think about it!

chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 11/20/03 - Proving

People talk about: proving God exists; proving that I exist; proving that the world exists. Or, sometimes, they talk about something they call "a scientific proof." But they never tell you what their standard of proof is. What would it take to prove these things? What would a "scientific proof" of God's existence be if there were one? What does it mean if there isn't such a thing? Is a scientific proof the only kind of proof?

I'd like to hear answers to (at least) some of these questions so that I might be able to understand what it is that people lament when they lament that we have no such proofs. How, for instance, does the evidence we do have for our own existence, fall short of a proof?

ttalady answered on 11/21/03:

How do you prove a belief? Science ALWAYS has a way of proving the miracle in life, how we are, how we work. I have yet to have science prove that God does not exist. God is not something that is in need of being proven, as well how a kitty cat knows when you do not feel well.

I believe in angels, in a God of some sort, and that there is a sort of life after death. Why, because my heart, soul, and brain tell me so. That is it, that is me. I do not have to prove me, I don't even have to wonder my beliefs because they are mine and mine alone.

The gift of knowledge and coming to human facts must be taken in high regards or we are doomed to forget what living is all about!

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 11/15/03 - How would you explain Mozart's creativity?

...

ttalady answered on 11/16/03:

I would explain it that he was truly in touch with himself, no pun intended! It is proven in my beliefs and mind that he was far from a moral person. He was a mear boy even in his later years that strived for one thing, attention. He did not understand the world around him, he did not understand the concepts the majority of the human race lived with day in and day out.

I truly believe his one and only link to the outside world, as he must have seen it, was that of his music. He must have wondered why it was so... very special, why it was so.... respected. Then again this wonder must have only been cause by his seclusion from others.

I am sure much of his being such has to do with his younger childhood days, being brought up in a very nasty situation for a child. As where I believed his release as well as way of hiding was behind his gift.

We all carry such great creativity in ourselves, in different ways of course. If you take a look at the past of most of the great artists (art-music), philosophers, scientists, ect you will find that their younger years were filled with termoil. It makes me believe that one that looses peace in life during the most important learning years of life does bring on the strenght of another aspect of life. Just as our five senses. A deer does not see well, they are color blind, however their hearing and smelling abilities are well beyond that of a human. As a blind person can not see their touch, smell, and hearing abilities almost take over for their lack in seeing.

Mozart's creativity is clearly seen being he was most opposite of the majority of humanity!

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 11/06/03 - Why does injustice cause so much emotion?

...

ttalady answered on 11/09/03:

Justice "The quality of being just; fairness." Emotion is the equal and opposite action to an act of justice or injustice.

Again this brings up the major issues of one with morals vs ones with out morals or lack there of. I have found in my personal life that many that are not responsive to justices or injustices lack that of moral direction. I have found that some I know very personally are more consumed of there own day in and day out of life that all that sorrounds them does not affect them in any way. For instance two girls that I go to school with. Neither of them voted as well most of the class. However they are the first to find it unjust to raise school tuitions, they find injustices in the tax system, school system (being they have children), ect. Of course their knowledge of such is so... very limited to the bills they pay and the paycheck.

I have a higher appreciation of one that is way emotional on a justice or injustice even if it may not be the same stance I take. It shows me that they actually have a view in the BIG picture of this world even if I may disagree. My father calls me a nut case on this stuff being I do put much emotion in such matters however in this brings on good conversation and the possibility of gaining new grounds on good beliefs.

Partial birth abortion! Now that is a killer for me being how can one even abort. I am PRO-LIFE! When Bush signed that bill that it is illegal I WANTED TO KISS HIM, CELEBRATE LIFE, AND SPREAD THE NEWS! My emotions for this now justice were beyond ANY feeling I have ever had. A step in the RIGHT direction for LIFE and JUSTICE! How could a human do such, to force a child out of the womb so... close to having "right to live" and take the means to cut the back part of this childs skull to suck out the childs brain? To think that in those terms the brain is what only makes this being a human???

Justice is a VERY moral issue. I have yet to meet a moral person with out values, spirit, a relious aspect in life. I try to argue that my family must contain some morals in life however they are so... very two sided on VERY important subjects in life that I find it hard that they are nothing more than followers in life.

Any way, emotions are awesome that they show what a person gives with life. Simple example, bump into someone and show no emotion, bump into someone and apologize or say "Pardon me", and note the equal and opposite reactions to each.

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 11/04/03 - How do you react to the following facts?

The richest 1% of Americans (compared with 18% in Britain) own well over 40% of their nation's wealth.

Nearly half the benefits of Mr Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 went to the richest 1%, while 60% of this year's cuts will go to taxpayers with incomes of more than $100,000.

Every member of the Bush cabinet is a millionaire.

The number of Americans living in poverty has risen to 12% in the last two years.

The United States child poverty rate is substantially higher (often two to three times higher) than that of most other major Western industrialized nations.


.

ttalady answered on 11/05/03:

You really believe those facts just as they stand huh? You must look WAY deeper into the facts to see the truth in the matter!

You are correct in all the facts. In that 1% of the wealthiest Americans that make over $100,000, they pay almost HALF of their income to taxes! Dem's are wanting to raise that to 60% they pay on taxes. Those beautiful taxes are the taxes that bring on the poverty level. Not just on the 1% of the wealthiest but all those middle people that just work to live and survive.

Look there are two smart classes in the US. The wealthy ones that are smart, they are cheap, and they have a free run when it comes to money. Class two is the ones that live by the system. The ones that have their homes, college, food, clothing, all funded by good old tax payer money. The idiots are the ones that are in the middle, like I, that have not figured out the money factor yet!

I have talked about this time and time again and someday there may be a revolution with the middle class fighting both sides.

You can be a Bush basher if you wish but get this one. Mrs. Clinton is one of the Senators of my state. Since she has been in office, our state taxes went up .25% in all counties, we lost our "tax-free" on clothing, we have lost a MAJOR company in upstate due to taxes and other business like charges. Would you know they have COMMERCIALS on the radio offering the WIC and a energy program. These are your welfare type programs that are obviously not getting enough people taking them that they are spending my tax $ to advertise free tax payers $?

Look, the system is messed up but not in who actually makes a hard earned dollar but who takes that hard earned dollar and gives it to ones that just sit back and watch. I see it every day, my sister is in the system! She has been to college twice, fully paid, dropped out. They pay for her groceries, her lights, her heating, her whole darn way of living. Why, because of the wealthiest in America as well the middle class. She does not want out, she does as she pleases, day care is paid for, she has no bills. Her ONLY worries are, getting cigs, a drink, money for movies, that's it!

The problem starts at home, in your state, in your representatives. If you wish for a change in this you better stand up and scream and get others to do so with you. It is not so much about taxes, tax breaks, IT IS WITH WHAT THE SYSTEM DOES WITH THE TAXES! I know I would like to see the books!

tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 10/28/03 - The rating system

Do we rate to boost the ego of those who reply, and to let them know that we think their answers are both heartfelt and sincere; or because we think their answers are well-thought out, and even, imagine, right!

ttalady answered on 10/29/03:

Well the way I see it, if an answer makes you think then it is worth rating. Whether or not one agrees does not imply the other being correct or not.

I also find this important when it comes to manners. Being when one addresses something that I put on the table it is only polite to address the response. I know manners have become that of null in this world however I respect the ones that atleast try to have such much over ones that refuse to use such.

I personally find the comments more valuable than the ratings. Too bad the system is set up that you have to rate to comment. Maybe something to suggest to the site?

tta

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 10/20/03 - solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem

The solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem is for Israel to start the removal of some 200,000 Jewish settlers from the West Bank and Gaza strip, that seems like it would be a good show of faith, + its the right thing to do.
Just as the Palestinian Authority needs to confront and eradicate the terrorists within their midst, so too does the Israeli government need to confront and remove the settlers and settlements that is itself a road block to peace.

Any thoughts on the matter?

ttalady answered on 10/21/03:

See I never get this whole deal? The West Bank and Gaza are that of Isreal correct? So why the heck are Palestinians there?

OH, the religious aspect right? I honestly wonder about the mentality of both sides. That they hate eachother so much for hundreds of years ago, fight for the wholy land, and loose their own people over the worship of a God? What God is so powerful to kill for land? Kill another?

That section of the world I see as Hell. I truly believe God must have said, "Ok you can have this little portion being you are apart of this world, but this is all you get". Don't you sometimes wonder that if we did not make such a big deal out of them blowing themselves up that maybe they would figure out, THE WORLD WILL GO ON WITH OUT THEM! Think of childhood! The bully that is always picking on another. Once you do not give attention to the bully you take away the issue.

The resolution is not in the settlers. The resolution is the stopping of countries taking sides on the matter and letting them figure it out. Turing a blind eye to the whole situation and offering refuge for the smart ones that want out of the whole deal. I would even say in my imagination of pulling out both leaders of the country and have one leader come in, say from Australia, and fix the mess. No more mediators, that just brings on sides. A plain Joe or Jane that has no connections to politics for a change and makes them decide if they can live with eachother. Get all the beefs out on a table, no true leadership but the only leadership they have, and then decide if they wish to kill eachother for forever or finally call an end to killing.

So your idea would not work being you would have given more ego to a side that is equal to that of the opposite. Just putting more jelly on the bread and the peanut butter not feeling tasted.

I believe my solution is the best. Let them fight it out and do what they wish with eachother. No one is right in this! Let them see for themselves that for everyone they kill another gets killed. That all they do is diminsh what they so dearly fight for, their beliefs, their morals, and their God. To put some sense in their heads is the way to go, let them decide with out someone backing up the other.

They have picked their battles time and time again, it is about time the world shuts them out to let them notice they have the choice of being a country or a mear Hell for the world to see.

Sometimes you have to shut the power off just to see the reality of life! If I can cook on a propane mini cooker then these people can live with acceptance. If we turn the power off for them we only give them the opportunity to appreciate the light in life. Then they decide!

tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/20/03 - What is more important than anything else?

(This may be related to the last question.)

ttalady answered on 10/21/03:

Giving!

Need I say more? OK! He he he... The most wonderful and important feeling in the world is giving to others. Beyond a feeling, there is an understanding of life with it.

Currently I am working on project "My Stuff Bag" developed by Dr. Laura. This is a foundation for all the thousands of children we do not hear of, think of, even know they exist at times. They are children of Foster Care which are abandoned, abused, children that have no family in life. These are children that have no home, nothing to claim as theirs, and with that no hope.

When I say thousands I mean hundreds of thousands. They live by the system day in and day out. The system has ruled their young lives, in and out of court, in and out of homes, in and out of families.

I work on blankets for these children. Comfy, security, what ever they wish to call them blankets. They are made of soft fleece, a nice happy pattern of some sort, and most of all made with hugs and love for them. I hope to start an action on this being I included my co-workers on this, my family on this, and as well working on a fabric store and Walmart on this.

This is so... important to me in this giving that I can not explain. It is having these children noticed, to having these children given what they were granted with birth, to having these children be our future! We constantly give to the dying, the sick, and the poor, however who notices the ones that are none of that however they do not live? I know of some people that have adopted outside of the US, children from China, Japan, many other countries and I know why they did so. They wanted a child of their own that was not ruled by the Govt decisions. However we have 150,000 children in Foster Care that are adoptable. 150,000 children that will most likely be in the system all their lives. 150,000 children that I will do my best in letting them know I care and I have faith in them.

It is the most important to give to those we forget in life. To know that a broken down Jeep can sit there for a couple of weeks but a broken down child must be priority. I have never felt so..... free, good, and darn well proud for giving.

If anyone is interested check out www.drlaura.com. I know many are scetchy on foundations, therefore if you wish to help out in greater ways, become a CASA member and help the little ones out there that need it. These hundreds of thousands of children are our future along with the millions that are in stable environments. If we make a difference in their lives think of the difference we can make in the world!

tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/19/03 - What is the world's most urgent priority?

...

ttalady answered on 10/21/03:

To live together as humans! We have come a long way from that of the Barbaric days however in that has come much confusion into what we are. I can bet in the cave man days if one cave man peed off another there was a straight out fight to the death. Much like nature. Now it has become more humainly however in suing others, hurting others in more "humainly" ways. I guess we humans have yet to figure out the soul we all carry.

Not all that long ago certain species of humans begged for freedom. Equality. What has happened with that is that equality was skipped and all of a sudden those species hold higher than the ones that had it in the beginning. It could be that if you starve a species for so long that the offering of a piece of bread out of the loaf would make a monster out of the species and take the whole loaf.

Now I should not but will assume that one would think what I consider "species" to be that of a different ethnic group. That is actually my 5% of such compared to ones that are homosexual, judges, women,ect.

For understanding with the top 3. Homosexuals, I will accept them for who they are, I do not respect in the least bit of what they expect from the public. Now not all homosexuals however a majority believe that we should view them as we view heterosexuals. To never ask why, to never disagree with their life style, to never question what homosexuality is. Years ago they were beaten, they were out casts, now they are accepted however asking way too much out of ones that live as we were brought up to. Better said we live as we are. Homosexuals do not wish to live as a heterosexual, they wish for their difference and ask to be noted as different. They want their rights however make themselves outcasts in how they try to do so. They can not change a religion however figure "If we can change society to accept us, why not a religion"?

Which brings me to the judges in the US. Let alone around the world. How they step over Governments, morals, and most of all the people they are suppose to protect. Judges have changed religions in a way that is hidden. Rulings have made us accept much that is wrong in life. The good guy or gal is punished worse than that of the evil doer. Example one is that lady that can not speak, she is basically in la la land however she lives. A judge rules to starve her until death because her husband said so. The judge never met the lady, never saw the tape of her living, let alone never cared enough to wonder if these actions would be nothing more than torture. I would bet he/she is "pro-choice" (really pro-abortion) in which should make one see how little this one respects life at all.

Which brings me to women. Woman myself here however disgusted at my own sex when it comes to this. The total lack of respect women have for men, for marriage, and specially themselves. It seems everything these days have to do with "feelings". Kobe case, example one. Now maybe he is guilty of what she says, he is definately guilty of cheating on his wife. Question why a girl, her size, (much smaller than him), go to a room, at night, after flirting all day long with him, expect just a kiss? It had nothing to do with seeing a star, it had nothing to do with a kiss, she had ALL expectation of getting it on. What happened, if anything, is that she got a bad feeling. All of a sudden it was not so much fun and she may have flipped out. I have a feeling this is not the first time she did such. Why is it she goes to the police station the next day, not that night, with underwear that have another mans revealings on such? Let me guess, she grabbed the first pair available! Not! A woman that has gone throught such wishes to feel clean, they shower, scrub themselves, and have the need to be clean. This girl is a nut case I tell ya!

So I know I went way.... off but I had to explain my position on our world's most urgent priority. To be able to live as humans together with out hurting eachother. We hurt eachother every day with our actions, words, and resolutions in life. Some what makes us individuals however there are times when we must face another and see that we all share one common goal in life, to live, to live happy, and to pass it on to generations.

tta



tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/18/03 - What is your attitude to death?

...

ttalady answered on 10/19/03:

I only hope death is ready for me!! LOL! I would be lying to say I do not fear it in a way however I accept it is just the cycle of life.

My attitude is pure wonder, spiritual, and when it happens it happens. It is not far from birth. Knowing the day we are born we begin to die. It is the one that gives the most in life that wins in the end. I believe that! One mark's their soul on another by giving.

tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 10/16/03 - To tolerate intolerance.

Ought intolerance to be tolerated by the tolerant? For instance, ought a tolerant person tolerate racism? Or should we (as it seems we are) tolerate the blatant recent anti-Semetic speech by the Malaysian Prime Minister?

ttalady answered on 10/18/03:

In your example of an anti-Semetic speech you should understand that there are not all that many that understand that term let alone have the freedom of speech and protest. Of course the American public has this right however I would say 75% of the American public really does not give too hoots about Malaysia, I would bet 95% of Americans can not even find it on a map, including myself of course!

Anti-Semetism is definately in the USA. But as foolish as we are we trust the Constitution to protect the ones that are intolerant of such. The lack of understanding the judicial system and how their wants, morals, beliefs, become our lives Constitutional or not.

The prime example is that of our court system. Our judges are suppose to be intolerant of laws that are broken, actions not acceptable by means of the Constitution, let alone actions that are not for the better good of society. Notice their tolerance though! They protest such in their rulings. They protest such not based on the true book of the US but more on their personal beliefs and morals. The right to bare arms has been on the table for years now. The issue has nothing to do with the good citizen of the US that abides by the laws but the issue is that of the illegal arms that are on our streets and in much higher numbers than that of our responsible gun owner. Because the judicial system is so... tolerant with illegal arms this brings on the matter of being intolerant of guns in general.

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/17/03 - What has given you most happiness?

...

ttalady answered on 10/18/03:

I would have to say what gives me most happiness is that of my memories. Not that I do not enjoy every day and what may come in the future however my memories of my childhood I do hold dear to me. In seeing friends from the past I love to reminice and laugh at the silly things we did, said, even thought at those times. Memories help me reflect on how far I have grown in life. Even the not so good things that are memories still bring on happiness for myself knowing I made it through it and having gone through such will allow me to help others, to know what I am facing if it pops up again, and the understanding of all the ups and downs in life.

Happiness to me is being content, just in the middle of up and downs. Of course a smile in giving one or receiveing on is well is happiness. A slight of the Scarelet O'Hara syndrome, however to smile even during a bad moment or day brings on much sunshine.

:)

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/13/03 - How do you interpret the principle of equality?

...

ttalady answered on 10/16/03:

Equality, is there such a thing? Such a being? Can one explain such?

If one asked a question, in wonderment, and one answers, in wonderment, is that not equal? Is that not two minds producing the same amount of energy and thought to one question?

All of man kind is equal. We just have too much garbage to see how we are all of the same. I swear to this day the only thing that makes us unable to see that we are all the same is hormones! We are not blessed with that of animal hormones, we have different ones which brings on that of feelings. Now I have heard one too many stories of a woman that wants to have a child show the signs of being pregnant. That she shows in the belly, believes she is, even the test telling her she is however it is empty space in the womb. Another case of a woman that does not want any more children. The test said she was however she never showed, never had any prego dealings,and she denied it until the child popped out.

That is the extreme of the female sex in hormones. In males it comes to that of depression. As females as well, but how the hormones work is totally different. A man in depression is either a work a-holic or non-work-able. As woman can not escape their feelings they provide a shield that allows them to function on the level that suites them.

Off track I know however if you take away hormones, emotions, feelings, and just have thought, then you will find equality.

An example that just happened t minus 30 min ago. The #1 best friend in my life that has no idea that she is such stopped by with her baby boy. A total suprise visit and I almost went to not answering the door do to my not being ready. We were peanut butter and jelly once, we were un-seperatalbe, but times change. We change, life changed, however we are the same people we have always been. My emotional status was not good, that she was no longer equal to me being she is bringing a precious into my house and I have yet to have one.

The middle is my secert, the ending is that as always she is my bestfriend and only hope to find that someday we can have that energy to be equal again. I fear that I am too strong in my mind to be equal to her. She is strong however has lack of ambition to do what is right, she questions herself in many matters that are ones that are a must need to know basis.

Enough, equality has nothing to do with the ways of life. Respect, understanding, and pure love gives us enough direction to the goals we can reach in reaching another.

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/15/03 - How can one know which is the best society?

...

ttalady answered on 10/16/03:

I believe she points out the necessity of one, individualism. One mind one soul one being. That there are many in society that can think much like one, can believe much like one, however can never be that one.

We are raised to be one or the other. To be good or bad, right or wrong, never are we given the choice to be just there in between in life. Granted we are just that, in between, however in our minds, soul, and heart we make mistakes and many times never see them.

A true member to society does close many doors. They become not of who they are but what they are told to be. As where I can give credit to homosexuals for being who they are, do I agree with them, no, and most of all I highly disagree with same sex partners having children by playing with nature. It has become an acceptable part of society, as abortion.

As Emily was an individual she saw much control in her life. Everything around her was controlled, the only thing she did control were her thoughts and her writings. Does not sound much different than you and I huh! To blend with society you do loose much of who you are however to blend in society you can change much in others. You must think like another to understand the many!

tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 10/10/03 - philosophically dishonest

Philosophy has been said to mean many different things and while I can agree with that, ought not philosophy mean presenting ideas and defending them with reasonable argument. Reasonable argument that involves more than just citing conclusions from some authority, more than sharing anecdotes, and certainly more than expressions of whimsical thinking; argument in which conclusion is through appeals to reason and by logical linkage to reasonable premises which are supported by the facts of verified/verifiable experience.
And as usual, I ask the experts, wouldnt to do otherwise be philosophically dishonest.

ttalady answered on 10/10/03:

I am that. However at this time I do not go directly by the teachings of philosophy but of the combination of things. It is a pure science that has that passion I so often talk about. The need to know, to experiance, to discover what we do not understand.

Mozart, the best of the best musician. He was considered a nut case in his day. He made beautiful music that only he understood at the time. Everyone else was just in awe of the sounds. He was respected for his music, never his life. That is until he passed away and left on the dream to others of having the gift of such. Then it was studied!

As for the best and most respected philosophers, are they not passed on now? That in their time they were respected maybe but never studied? Philosophy is used every day by most people in this world. Whether it is heard or not is the difference however it seems the best things in life are always heard better when they are no longer heard! Call it taking something for granted however I believe it is just a lesson that is handed down.

In my heart and mind I was taught the most accurate fact and philosophical point in life from my Grandmother. If you build a proper, stable, and thought out foundation of anything it will work. Every summer spending time at a wonderful camp on a sand dune. We had the highest point of all campers yet the saddest looking one. We always had the best view and best company. As children, playing on the beach, going to Bingo, Grandma always said "Bring a rock home with you for the bank", sand dune that is. She explained to us, as we complained about the job, that with out you (us) thinking of the camp and dune we just have it wash out some day. How is that for philosophy of life?


So simple however so true and a fact of life. I know I went off track however tis my passion. We are all dishonest in being philosophical, fact comes from what we believe, live, feel, and defiantely think which just pulls it all together. We make fact as the ones before us. They made fact however it may have not been fact then, it may have become fact after the fact!

tta


Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/10/03 - Inequality...

According to UN-HABITAT's new publication "The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003" nearly one billion people alive today - one in every six human beings - are slum dwellers. If no serious action is taken, the number of slum dwellers worldwide is projected to rise over the next 30 years to about 2 billion. The report finds that the cyclical nature of capitalism, increased demand for skilled versus unskilled labour, and the negative effects of globalisation - in particular, economic booms and busts that ratchet up inequality and distribute new wealth unevenly - contribute to the enormous growth of slums. In the past, the global economic system was responsible for creating the famous slum areas of major cities in today's developed world and it is very likely to do the same again in the developing world.
What are your views on this type of inequality?


ttalady answered on 10/10/03:

I can agree with that publication. I see it in my small town. What is happening is that governement is taking care of living for many. It is beyond their food, health services, ect.

Ok, and example. Our small area in upstate NY has many welfare receipants flocking to it. They are mostly coming from NY City and my guess being they are being thrown out. You have to have a beautiful city for people to vacation at, right? In the small city near us the down town area has become welfare central. I could not tell you the population however the biggest shopping mall is made up of a Walmart, Kmart, and a couple odds and ends. We have beggers on our streets that live in government funded housing. We have apt complexes that look like your basic trash houses with tons of unkept children running around. What our city is doing about this is taking tax payers money to reside, put new roofs on, in all make it look pretty so we do not notice what is there. The slums. So on top of funding the fixing of a welfare housing developement we as well pay for the living of these people. The landlords sit back with the good old govt check that is guarnateed and let the place go to he**.

The issue comes down to the government and the silent middle class. The middle class is the only party that suffers in this. The middle class is soon to be null and void if something does not change. The middle class shall become poverty!

My true view on this is that the government has to stop protecting the ones that buck the system. Much comes from the wealth as well the poor, the middle man is loosing and with out them you loose much of the economy. The middle man is always pulled down from wealth yet too proud to go to poverty. The are the workers in humanity yet have yet to be heard. Unions are only that of BIG companies and are heard due to that. The simple Joe or Jane that works their but off at a rinky dink company is never noticed let alone has no way of being heard, even in voting times.

The truth is the only way to make it in life, just make it, is to buck the system. I have too much pride to do so!

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 10/09/03 - LIMITATIONS!


Do the wise know their limitations? Do the foolish?

HANK

ttalady answered on 10/10/03:

Yes and yes, no and no. To be called wise is another calling that one wise. I have yet to find one call themself wise unless by being a "wise a**". As well foolish, another calls and labels one such.

So either or the wise or the foolish is just a person that does and does not have limitations. Both can have or not have limitations, that does not change whether they are wise or foolish in anothers eyes. That one gave them that label, it does not make it true though.

As I am a redneck, I am not prejudice. Being labeled a redneck, which I have not problem with, does not limit me to being a prejudice person. I am Conservative, again not limiting me to being a prejudice person. A wise person can be foolish as a foolish person can be wise. The only limitations that come are with the one that gave that label to the other. They expect no different!

tta

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 10/08/03 - Can we control our thoughts? If so, how?

...

ttalady answered on 10/08/03:

Now thinking about it, yes we can. Now not proven however dreams are that of thoughts that are stressed thoughts. For instance I have had experiances dreaming, TV on, and all of a sudden my dreams were involved with what was on TV. Waking up wondering what all was about and seeing what was on TV at the time of my sleep. The brain never sleeps as where your senses always work, eventually, in sleep.

The only way to control, not change, our thoughts is that by listening to them. Accept them and then allow a total opposite thought to become. I call it rationalizing. Not so much of a fact but more of understanding that a thought does not make it a fact or true. Many times it involves other sections of the brain that are more true to feelings, emotion, or past.

In all honesty to control your thoughts all have to do with which section of the brain you are using, the more you involve the better chance you come to a conclusion or maybe confusion. Sleep on it!! You'ld be suprise on how much you get the next day when you give your brain a time to venture into areas you do not usually work on!

Just some advice!

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 10/02/03 - How can morality be called morality

How can morality be called morality; unless it is applied equally with everyone?

ttalady answered on 10/08/03:

Exactly!! However morallity I believe does not apply to all. As in being comparible or even alike in any way.

Morals are more focused on beliefs and teachings, therefore impossible for all to have the same.

I belief having morals in life bring not only one into another level of living but all that surround the one. Visa versa. I have found that people with high morals, beliefs, standards, are easier to share with, to be out spoken at times with, and always to learn from.

As where I had asked the question some time ago about ethics and accounting. Now, not everyone knows right from wrong and then again who is to say right from wrong. Only in teaching do you get this. Understandable if there were an Ethics of Accounting, which there may be, however I have yet to see that as a course. From day one they show you how to move numbers in accounting. To account for expenses, depreciation, ect ect. They stress that of Ethics and say you must have them in this job however one must teach such in the one field to understand what ethics they speak of.

For example the accounting principal is made of a a group called GAAP. These are people that set the standards of accounting. They say yeah or nay on rules and as the SEC go after ones not abiding by such or being un-ethical. So being these are just normal people with normal brains, shouldn't they come up with an ethical course for accounting? This way all in accounting are on the same train of thought?

Ok, that is job based however in this field if you are not moral/ethical you ruin your life with bars! Note that psychology steps into play as well in jobs where one that may have been moral and ethical all there lives can become prey to one that manipulates well!

So think of morality as your belief. A belief that hopefully is based on truth, goodness, and giving before receiving. I believe when one is truly moral they base their actions on thought over feelings. As easy as that sounds it is not. Anyone can feel a belief but if they do not think it then it is worthless.

:)

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 10/03/03 - Limbaugh and Logic

The Rush Limbaugh fracas has touched on logic on another board. Limbaugh, you know, commented on the reaction to his remark that black football players were given a free pass by the media by saying, "If I hadn't been right, there would not have been all this outrage." On the board I was referring to, Limbaugh is accused of not only racism but of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (yet!). (I think his argument is construed as something like this: If I hadn't been right, then, there would not have been all this outrage. But there was all this outrage. So, I must have been right.) And, of course, Dark Crow's favorite fallacy, the strawman, has raised its empty head. Is Rush a bad logician as well as being a conservative? And, which is worse, anyway?

ttalady answered on 10/08/03:

Why did no one debate him on his comments? Why, instead of getting all heated up, did no one say "Rush, you are way off the ball here and this is why....."? I find his logic could possibly be right on the money. Beyond that, what he said and how it was taken by the public and media are two different things. For him to give his OPINION regarding a racial matter does not make him prejudice let alone makes the subject open for debating. The actual racial matter had more to do with the fallicy of the media and how the media treats racial matters.

His Conservative views were only involved in one way, telling it like he sees it. His job is to do this, to spark some fire in ones listening, and for others to debate upon the issue. Just as the Moderate Bill Orielly and way Left Doug Stephan show.

It is hard to say his logic is not correct being no one debated him on the issue. It is only human to want to hear and accepting hearing what you want to hear.

Note Arnold won even with his "Groping" issue. He actually gained women voters from the rediculious charges against him. Not saying they are not true, where was the law suit though? Sexual harassment? Hello everyone and there sister knows about that one and a guy with BIG $$$$, hmmmm?

In both cases logic comes with either appologizing a mistake or one taking on debate. In Arnold case it was a direct action to another, no debate. In Rush's case it was an OPINION which was open for debate. I am glad he resigned and figured out that he is what he is, no $$$ can change that!

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 10/06/03 - sciences are more important than the arts

The sciences are more important than the arts for an understanding of the world in which we live, or, even, all we need to understand it.-----------Or are they?

ttalady answered on 10/08/03:

Well it is my belief as well as a local professors belief and understanding that science and the arts go hand in hand. Using the arts in a form of using ones imagination has helped many scienist discovery not only the fact of something but as well the beauty of it. Just recently a town not that far away opened up a new science center. They had been planning for this as well as collecting funds to do so. Upon entering the science center there is an enormous sculpture done by a local artist that is made of fossils. It took her 6 years to build however as she said it took many more years for the beauty of the piece to become.

Even in the sense of a scientist, the passion they carry to discover or even just gaze upon what has already been discovered. I find this no different then the passion of an artist who as well carries such passion of discovery.

In conclusion I find that neither could be more important when it comes to life, both would not be so important if not for the other. There is art in science as science in art! It took the beauty of a body artistically to wonder what the body has on the inside.

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 10/01/03 - Multiculturalism and Relativism

This piece was published in Butterflies and Wheels.com and is thought-provoking. It is especially salubrious for those who think that "multiculturalism" and "tolerance" are unquestionable givens. That relativism and multiculturalism, often thought to be on the side of the angels seems to be really on the opposite side should be startling news for some. I invite your comments.

Cultural Relativism
There are times when, do what we will, we are confronted with goals, values, moral preferences, that are in flat contradiction. We have to choose one and reject the other. Much as we would like to, we can't blend or compromise or harmonise or take a little from this pot and a dab from that and come up with a nice mix. Doing one thing simply rules out doing the other and that's all there is to it. Digital not analog, yes or no.

So for instance reasonable and desirable goals of tolerance, understanding, cosmopolitanism, and cultural relativism can clash with equally reasonable and desirable goals of preventing harm to others, criticising unjust laws and customs and traditions, exposing exploitation and oppression, and advocating an end to asymmetrical, unfair, cruel, punitive and destructive instituitions. Sometimes those institutions and practices and customs are in Third World countries, and then attempts of First World people to reform or abolish them will conflict with the laudable goal of not being a cultural imperialist or Eurocentric or self-righteous or intolerant. And then one has to choose.

One obvious (yet strangely easily overlooked) way to deal with this problem is to ask ourselves what we mean by 'culture'. If we think and say that women shouldn't be murdered by their fathers and brothers for, e.g., resisting an arranged marriage, only to be told that that's their culture and it's arrogant and Eurocentric to judge other cultures by Western standards, then surely the thought is available: what do you mean 'their culture'? Whose culture? And what follows from that? Is it the culture of the women who are murdered? Or is it only the culture of the men doing the murdering. If the latter, why should their culture be privileged?

In fact it's quite strange the way a line of thought that's intended to side with the oppressed often sides with oppressors in the name of multiculturalism. A great many practices could be put in the box 'their culture'. Dowry murders, female infanticide, female genital mutilation, slavery, child labour, drafting children into armies, the caste system, beating and sexually abusing and witholding wages from domestic servants especially immigrants, Shariah, fatwas, suttee. These are all part of someone's 'culture', as murder is a murderer's culture and rape is a rapist's. But why validate only the perpetrators? Have the women, servants, slaves, child soldiers, Dalits, ten-year-old carpet weavers in these cultures ever even had the opportunity to decide what their culture might be?

And this is where the hard choice comes in, where the competing goods have to be sorted out. One can decide that tolerance and cultural pluralism trump all other values, and so turn a blind eye to suffering and oppression that have tradition as their underpinning, or one can decide that murder, torture, mutilation, systematic sexual or caste or racial discrimination, slavery, child exploitation, are wrong, wrong everywhere, universally wrong, and not to be tolerated.

ttalady answered on 10/01/03:

You know, you must have a box, then again I must be speaking some alien language. Did I not speak of exactly the same issue but in very simple terms in "Cow and the coward".

The issues of thinking, morally, in beliefs, but doubting something greater? Did I not say that, maybe in the wrong words I suppose.

I said the exact same thing except put into perspective a situation! Take a look and rate me on my fact that it is the exact same question you asked less maybe relating to.

I should not have to say this however thinking out side of the box, culture is not just another country, it is another way of living! As well beliefs, morals, even thoughts, how one lives is much like a culture, just because one is a German does not mean they live as all German's, we still hold the individual thought of being an individual!

I asked the exact same question you are asking now!

tta

Question/Answer
benjamin1985 asked on 09/28/03 - See through

Hey
I'm used to listening to Slow Pop songs. There's one sentence I hear pretty much and that's: "You see (right) through me." I've checked my dics pretty much but found nothing concise or even something that matches the rational procedure of a poem. I appreciate all your responses.
Benjamin

ttalady answered on 10/01/03:

Well in the Pop songs most of the time it is meant on a sadness. That you know me and can look right through me with out noticing me. In all that possibly two people become one in mind, in all, but soul.

The beauty of this phrase is that if two body can possibly become so close in nature, life, everything but soul then you just can see through them. Let me tell you that it scares the be-gezus out of me being my partner and I think so much alike, speak alike, we have something that is seeing through eachother. At times he truly speaks for me as I do him. Not making a decision, the "You just took the words out of my mouth before I even had the chance", or even "I had the chance but waited for some reason".

It is a real thing, beyond what many imagine let alone want. The trick to having such a bond is knowing how to stay an individual with the bond staying there. How terrible it is to speak for another, how terrible to to loose individuality, however how sweet to know that some how there is an energy that passes between two bodies to allow such.

Think of the words as a child and a parent. The amazing things a child does and not all taught, almost that they just know, they can see your soul. You share a piece of you in this.

With music, try some classical music in relax mode. Hear the same message, the same tune, just no words. It is an energy!

tta

benjamin1985 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
benjamin1985 asked on 09/28/03 - In it

Dear ttalady
In your response, there was an expression I've been desparately looking for: "If you're in it"
Will you tell me what that precisely means?
I'd be very grateful.
Benjamin

ttalady answered on 10/01/03:

I can tell you what it means to me

"If you're in it", it is yours, you own it as a situation, a part of life. In all you are living it! This is where there are decisions to be made, it can be that of an easy decision or not. It can be that of life altering or that of life tweeking decision. Either way you are there, you might see it or not, and based on ones capability will have the source of dealing with it.

I know it sounds bad, the term, like something that no one wants to experiance however "being in it" circumstances are as well all the great things in life.

As where I am in it right now answering this question, do I let it all out or let you take what I gave as my means?

In my thoughts to be in it is one extreem or another, we never notice the it when it is just simple in life. Then again we look back and remember those little "it's" that were so simple at the time yet so important in who we are to this day.

It in this sense equals the moment. Any moment in life.

I hope I have helped! If not give me an idea of the question at hand. In reality the question never matters, the context might depending on what you are looking for from me!

tta

benjamin1985 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 09/26/03 - The Shakespearean Principle

Is it true, as Juliet said it was, that "a rose by any other name smells as sweet?"

ttalady answered on 09/26/03:

I am Yech! Therefore "A plague o' both your houses!"

Juliet and Romeo where the roses to be seen!

I do speak softly yet carry a big stick!

Hugs,
tta

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 09/21/03 - Why do bad things happen to good people?

There is a fairly well-known book by Harold Kushner published in 1980 called, "When Bad Things Happen to Good People," which tries to answer the question, "why do bad things happen to good people?" But why is this an issue? It is, no doubt, unfortunate and sad that bad things happen to good people, but why should it be assumed that there is some one, general, answer to this question? Why is it puzzling that bad things happen to good people? Is it the only reason that if there is a good and omnipotent God, that it should not be so?

ttalady answered on 09/24/03:

This reminds me of one story from 9/11. A well to do family, lovely family as well. A family very close, religious, and would most likely be considered "picture perfect" from the outside. (As all families have issues of some sort). One of the sons, still in grade school, happened to be on the plane that went into the Pentagon. He was on some sort of a field trip. From that day his father denounced his God. He blamed his God for having this done to him with all the time and effort he put into being what his book and religion told him to be in living good and being a good person.

I believe that the question to the answer is that bad does not see bad, it equals itself out. When bad happens to one that believes they have done all possible with being good, then we question why! I believe why it happens is to only know what good really is. Maybe one of lifes lessons or even teases to help us along the way, faith and passion bring us through.

An example. My sister lost her husband two years ago. Terrible thing to happen. After him passing my sister is given the monies due from his passing on. Not to say this was a good thing however money was very tight for her for the year he was basically dying. How the bills rack up when you have a loved one in the hospital for a year. So with this money the bills for this were paid and 20k was left to her and the baby. She had this was gone in 1 month. She bought and bought and bought and became broke beyond her means once again. This is nothing suprising being her issues, however now being broke, having had a chance to regroup, she has done bad again by having moved away from family leaving all that she did with the 20k behind. She keeps on running and running from problems/bad which only keeps her in the same situation. She can not face bad in the face and figure it out!

As I see it, when I have a bad cycle going on, I am not doing something right. I am missing something and have to figure it out. I enjoy those times the most being when the good shows up I know how great it is! You can only respect something 100% when you have had it, know it, yet have missed it from time to time!

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 09/15/03 - CONTROL!

A lack of basic reasoning can administer CONTROL while functioning as a govenrment. Reason, of course, seeks "to explain or justify an action by citing facts, circumstances and inducements together with the workings of the mind upon them." One type of this CONTROL can be found in a TIMARCHY!

In a TIMARCHY, "reason no longer rules and the army dominates." Everything worthwhile would be deemed degenerative. Women who shouldn't bear children bear many. These children would then involve themselves in mixed breeding, civil discord, greed and selfishness. All persons who earned the most money would purchase land. Their enemies would be virtuous and elderly. The strong would enslave the weak while protecting their own. An intelligent man would not be appointed to office. A son would follow in the footsteps of his father.

In Plato's "Criticism of Democracy," he believes "unjust societies classify democracy as being worse than TIMARCHY and OLIGARCHY and only being better than tryanny!" To me, the basic idea in the government of our country, the United States, is that men can govern themselves. Conclusion: Our government obtains its powers from the consent of the governed.

Aren't we lucky?

HANK

ttalady answered on 09/17/03:

"Our government obtains its powers from the consent of the governed", I have a slight problem with this statement only being the Electoral College, when it comes to the Presidency. I do not agree with how this works, that it is a fact that my vote only counts as a point toward one vote, my vote does not count in whole. I voted for Bush and like to believe he is acting as I and many Americans would expect in a President, however I now question my position when it comes to political parties.

I can not give facts (statistics) in this however there have been Presidents of this country that have one by electoral votes but not the actual votes of the people. As where if one county is sided towards one another county may off set another plus some. The governed only elect a President from a percentage. I should be counted as a full vote, not a partial of a possibility!

These days Democracy is nothing short of show biz. It sickens me on how any politician, left or right, conducts themselves. It is all an act in the beginning and then they sit back and play with our lives as they see fit to. We hire them thinking they will do the job, benefit our lives, however many times they just make it more difficult to live. It is time that govt loosens the ties of calling all shots and letting the people decide what is right and wrong. I find it wrong they appoint judges! Very wrong because they have an agenda to keep their post.

The truth in my eyes stands that the govt manipulates us to need them however slaps us in the face when we ask! My opinion/truth!

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 09/15/03 - DISCONTENT!


"Wealth is the parent of luxury and indolence, and poverty of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent." In Plato's "Republic"

Any comments?

HANK

ttalady answered on 09/17/03:

I can relate and agree with this but only if the context was not in relation to $$. I think of this as the balance in life. Being in the middle is the best way to live, strongest way to live. Ones that I know that are wealthy in life, that seem to "have it all" are ones that I find very sad in life. Beyond possesions, I am talking about the one that set enormous goals and met everyone yet has nothing left to work for. In many cases stepping on many others feet to get where they wanted to be and never looking back. Then getting there, looking back, regretting and sometimes punishing themselves for such.

The ones that live the poor life have nothing better to do than constantly blame others for their lives. Why they did not reach goals, why they live/feel/think as they do. Instead of fixing they just argue. The ones that can not accept that they make their course in life, no one can do this for them.

In both cases it is the extreem of un-happiness. I often wonder about Bill Gates. Beyond his billions, he reached his goals many years ago. I truly believe he is a man that at one point and time thought about checking out of his prefection. Just wanting to be the normal nerd he was many years prior. He has one thing that many in his standing do not have and that is passion. I can not believe the passion for more $$$, he has enough to support 20 generations of his blood. His passion is in a new goal, in keeping his family life a family life, and with doing so taking care of the ones that as well have that passion, his employees.

My family was blessed/harmed by a winnings in lotto many years ago. Prior to the winnings we were a very tight yet on the lower side of living "things" family. With 4 children my father often pawned things for milk and food. As a family we were wealthy in our love. Money came to play in our lives and soon we became the poorest in the world. Loosing touch with many loved ones due to our new adventures however my father always made a means to remind us of the happiness we once had. We were now the givers and constantly being hurt by what we gave. We were considered something we never were! The money is gone, our lives are back to being even, and now we have once again found out what being rich in life truly is!

Wealth and poverty is in the heart! True wealth is far from luxerious, it is happiness. True poverty is far from meaness, it is understanding. The only way Plato may be close to being correct is if you involve a $. Spiritually and in real life this statement is false.

tta

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 09/14/03 - gravest of mistakes to mistake the string with the hook

It seems to me the gravest of mistakes to mistake the string with the hook, as well as the philosophy with the philosopher, so, can it be true that because a philosopher is religious, it follows her philosophy is religious?
And secondly---Can the holder of an opinion, that is the opinion of the book published and purchased, claim the opinion as their own?

ttalady answered on 09/17/03:

Hey DC!

I'm just going to go on a whim with this one. Using simple life. For part one, I would say no. Does when adding butter to mash potatoes make the butter mash potatoes? No, separate entities however the butter flavors the mash potatoes in a pleasing or displeasing way. Enhancing the food. As where the use of religion in philosophy enhances the philosopher as well as the one subject to the philosophy. It adds flavor which can be negative or positive.

Part two I am going to relate to my beliefs and feelings. Often when I speak of the US I speak of my country, my land. Our service men and women being my men and women. The children of the world being my children. Now of course this is not such, it is far from my land in owning it all let alone that I am a mear immigrant due to my ancestors before me. Only the American Indian could claim such and be correct, the govt on the other hand has the power to say such.

It comes down to what is in ones heart. An overpowering feeling and belief that it is yours. There is a difference in having legal rights to something and just rights to having something. Beliefs are not meant to be owned by one. Even as far as books, writing, ect. One that offers such to the world must accept that some/many may take that on as apart of them. Not in the sense to be factual that they created such but more that "This is exactly how I believe, feel, think, ect". "You took the words right out of my mouth". Opinions are only something in this world due to sharing them. If we did not they would be mear thoughts, never spoken, never heard.

In general in fact we own nothing. There is nothing in ones life time that is not meant to be shared. I do believe that everything around us is a mear gift to be used. To learn, to grow, and to leave behind when it is time. Even our bodies we can not take with us, yet our responsibility to take care of.

Every encounter with the gifts in life are mear enhancements of what we are and become!

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 09/10/03 - When, if ever, is torture justified?

This question is prompted by the following remarks:

Remembering al-Qaida's attacks on America tomorrow, many will wearily note that the world did indeed change that day two years ago and that our newspapers are still full of the reverberations. Without 9/11 there would have been no Iraq war. Without Iraq there would be no Hutton, and without Hutton, TB wouldn't be looking quite as weak as he is.
The American press betrays the same pattern, but there is one important and - to me - astonishing absence. Weeks go by without serious newspapers investigating or commenting on human rights abuses by the American government. At home and abroad, hundreds, maybe thousands, of men are being held in camps and prisons by the military, by the CIA and by the justice department, incommunicado, without legal representation or hope of release, there to endure prolonged and terrifying interrogation. Alone, this is enough for the US government to place itself in contravention of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which it is obligated to uphold. But that is not all. There is evidence that the US authorities have encouraged the use of torture and may indeed have participated in the torture of those men they believe to hold information on past and future terrorist attacks.

We surely didn't imagine two years ago that this would be an outcome of 9/11 and yet it has happened with such ease, the once rights-conscious American public turning its gaze the other way, along with the self-regarding worthies of the American newspaper industry. The one exception has been the Washington Post, which alone has pressed the US government on the legality of Guantanamo Bay and the processes instituted there, not by lawyers, but the jesuitical neo-conservative mandarins of the Pentagon, and it has gone some way to exposing the "stress and duress" techniques applied to prisoners at the US base at Bagram in Afghanistan.

Researching my book Empire State, a novel set against the background of these abuses, I discovered that the information is not terribly difficult to come by. In March, prisoners at Bagram reported being beaten, deprived of sleep and made to lie naked on a sheet of ice. The same month, US military coroners ruled that the deaths of two prisoners in mysterious circumstances were homicides. Just before the invasion, I met an American who is attached to a shadowy military/espionage operation; I asked him about the rumours of torture. He replied with a look of astonishment, "Are you crazy? Of course. That's the war we've got on our hands. We didn't ask for it this way."

By far the most disturbing development is the American practice of handing over recalcitrant prisoners to be tortured by compliant regimes in Jordan, Morocco and particularly Egypt, where beating, drowning and even electric shock treatment are used.

When a man is transported bound and blindfolded - in the American parlance "packaged" - it is said that he has been "rendered" to a foreign service, and from the unutterable hell of his subsequent experience come "extreme renditions". The desired result of this process is a complete set of answers to questions drawn up by US intelligence that are then fed into a database which, without a trace of irony, has been codenamed Harmony.

Naturally, the CIA officers are not themselves applying the electrodes to genitals or rubber truncheons to the soles of the feet, but in the case of prisoners being tortured in Saudi Arabia, they are on hand, in the words of CIA director George Tenet, to "share the debriefing results".

All of the above may make you think that I have become violently anti-American. I have not - I still love the place and the people - but it is profoundly disturbing that our closest ally has slipped so easily into methods which begin to match the theocratic savagery that launched the 9/11 attacks in the first place.

ttalady answered on 09/10/03:

Cantor Fitzgerald lost 1000 people that day. Just one group from 9/11 now has 985 children missing a parent. TORTURE, take a look at the 985 children's faces. FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES 9/11 will cause pain to them. Imagine 70 years of torture, pain, anger. With the fact they were innocent to the tee!

I'm really disappointed tonyrey that you question what our American govt does however do you not question what others do as well? It's a sick world out there, war is not a party, and what I don't know about what protects me I leave that in God's hands to figure out. It is called the strongest survive. Survival of the fittest just as our common nature.

Do you honestly believe for one second that if the tables were turned those people would not do the same to us? The early bird gets the worm!

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 09/10/03 - Reality is truth, agree or disagree?

so what is, is true, it is only what we can say about it that can be true or false?

ttalady answered on 09/10/03:

Truth, we were all born, we are all living, and we will all die someday. Truth is more like a possesion. Much like words are a possesion. That change form, they grow, or can become less than before.

My neice, the cutest little thing in the world. I am Aunt Jenny, her truth is that I am a giant bug. She has seen pictures of me, she knows I am not a bug, however with her perception of the word ant/Aunt she thinks of a little bug with lots of feet. Her truth in this will change once she spends this weekend with me for the first time. Then will come the understanding and relating me to her uncles. But until then, I am a very large ant!

Reality, another hard concept to truly define! Everyone has a different reality however I suppose there was a moment two years ago tomorrow that everyone was feeling the same as for Americans. In a room with 50 other people watching NYC during the tradegy. Every face was lost of expression, there was complete silence, all were actually saking physically. One by one people weeded out from the room however that day was a day reflecting on our lives. On how good it was just a day before, hours before, minutes before, and how all changes in seconds. To see 9/10/01 again and how many feel so foolish now that they complained about high taxes, traffic, getting a ticket from a trooper.

Reality has changed, it changes all the time.

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 09/05/03 - Just for fun

What is love?
What is the meaning of life?
What is philosophy?
What is evil?
What is the answer?
Can god make a rock so big he can't move it?
Will you wake up tomorrow?
Can you ever do that which you can not do?
Can you do other than you can do?

ttalady answered on 09/05/03:

What is the questions that no one has answers for?

Did I win??

I BELIEVE love is that beyond control. It over powers anger and evil, it lives in a smile and frown. Love starts at caring and to trying not to care. Love is when you have been touched by another in a way that has changed your life. A lesson yet never to truly understand it.

I BELIEVE life is love, all the same story yet without others involved. To accept oneself and know that life is a game, you are in control of the board.

The rest starts with "I BELIEVE love is...". It makes the world go around, it makes us wonder, it makes us feel, everything possible we are in wonderment about. Love is truly something we can not control. There are so... very many factors in it, so many thoughts, emotions, visual and physical dealings. It is the one gift that we all question. Life we question when love is involved!

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 09/05/03 - Is the truth important? If so, why?

>>

ttalady answered on 09/05/03:

The truth of what? Just in general "truth"? That is much like asking if feelings are important? Truth carries it's own means, facts, and beliefs. It is very important that we have such being a guide line for ones to live by.

I say that the truth of having the best pet is owning a cat. They are dependant, have wonderful personalities in general, and are very clean animals. A truth for my partner is that dogs are the best pets. They are people animals all the way, are more active, and live for the attention of people. My truth is true to me and many visa versa.

I find it is important that there are what I call extreemes in life. That there are opposites and there are opposites in truth. Call it the need to broaden one's horizons into something beyond what is already figured as the truth. Truth justifies our thoughts, beliefs, as well feelings. As any of those may change so will what one considers the truth.

Very important!

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 09/02/03 - World Poverty:

Tuesday September 2, 2003
The Guardian

The world is beginning to look like France, a few years before the Revolution. There are no reliable wealth statistics from that time, but the disparities are unlikely to have been greater than they are today. The wealthiest 5% of the world's people now earn 114 times as much as the poorest 5%. The 500 richest people on earth now own $1.54 trillion - more than the entire gross domestic product of Africa, or the combined annual incomes of the poorest half of humanity.
Now, just as then, the desperation of the poor counterpoises the obscene consumption of the rich. Now, just as then, the sages employed by the global aristocrats - in the universities, the thinktanks, the newspapers and magazines - contrive to prove that we possess the best of all possible systems in the best of all possible worlds. In the fortress of Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay we have our Bastille, in which men are imprisoned without charge or trial.

Like the court at Versailles, the wealth and splendour of the nouveau-ancien regime will be on display, not far from the stinking slums in which hunger reigns, at next week's world trade summit in Cancun in Mexico. Between banquets and champagne receptions, men like the European trade commissioner Pascal Lamy and the US trade representative Robert Zoellick will dismiss with their customary arrogance the needs of the hungry majority. There we will witness the same corruption, of both purpose and execution, the same conflation of the private good with the public good: le monde, c'est nous. As Charles Dickens wrote of the ruling class of that earlier time: "the leprosy of unreality disfigured every human creature in attendance."

The unreality begins in Mexico with the World Trade Organisation's statement of intent. It will, its director general says, ensure that "development issues lie at the heart" of the negotiations. The new talks, in other words, are designed to help the people of the poor nations to escape from poverty. In almost every respect they are destined to do the opposite. Every promise the rich world has made the poor world is being broken. Every demand for the further expropriation of the wealth of the poor is being pursued with ruthless persistence.

Take, for example, the issue of "tariffs", or taxes on trade. A new report by Oxfam, published today, shows that the poorer a nation is, the higher the rates of tax it must pay in order to export its goods. The United States imposes tariffs of between 0-1% on major imports from Britain, France, Japan and Germany, but taxes of 14 or 15% on produce from Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal. The British government does the same: Sri Lanka and Uruguay must pay eight times as much to sell their goods over here as the United States.

This happens for two reasons. The first is that the poorer nations can't fight back. The second is that, without taxes, the poor would outcompete the rich. The stiffest tariffs are imposed on goods such as textiles and farm products, in which the weak nations possess a commercial advantage.

The current trade talks were launched with the promise that tariffs would be reduced or eliminated, "in particular on products of export interest to developing countries". The deadline for producing an agreed text for the Cancun meeting was May 31. Because the rich nations have blocked every attempt to agree upon the wording, nothing has been produced. Instead, last week the European Union, the US and Canada submitted a new paper. It proposes that the poorest countries must do the most to cut their trade taxes. Bolivia and Kenya must reduce their tariffs by 80%, the EU by 28% and the US by just 24%. It appears to be a calculated insult, designed to prevent any agreement on this issue from taking place.

Nor has any progress been made on farm subsidies. In 1994, the rich countries agreed that they would phase them out, if the poor countries promised to open their markets to western corporations. The poor nations kept their promise, the rich countries broke theirs. The new round of talks is supposed to lead to the "phasing out [of] all forms of export subsidies", and a negotiating text to this effect was meant to have been produced by March 31. Again, the promise has been broken, and again the poor have been told that only if they grant the rich world's corporations even greater access to their economies, farm subsidies will come to an end.

But the powerful nations, while refusing to address the demands of the poor, press their own claims with brutal diplomacy. They now insist that the "development round" be used to force nations to grant foreign corporations the same rights as domestic ones; to open their public services to the private sector and to invite foreign companies to bid to run them. What this means, as nearly all the big multinational corporations are based in the rich world, is a rich world takeover of the poor world's economy.

Lamy and Zoellick and the governments (such as ours) they represent must know that these demands are impossible for the weaker countries to meet. They must know that the combination of their broken promises and their outrageous terms could force the weaker governments to walk out of the trade talks in Cancun, just as they did in Seattle in 1999. They must know that this will mean the end of the World Trade Organisation. And this now appears to be their aim.

Subverted and corrupted as the WTO is, it remains a multilateral body in which the poor nations can engage in collective bargaining and, in theory, outvote the rich. This never happens, because the rich nations have bypassed its decision-making structures. But the danger remains, so the EU and the US appear to wish to destroy it and to replace world trade agreements with even more coercive single-country deals. The narrow path campaigners have to tread is to expose the injustices of the proposed agreements without assisting the rich world's underlying agenda by demanding that "the WTO has got to go".

But eventually, as in France, there must be a revolution. It is likely to happen only when there is a globalised crisis of survival: a worldwide shortage of grain, for example (like the deficit which followed the bad harvest of 1788) or - and this is currently more likely and more imminent - a shortage of fossil fuel. In previous columns I have suggested some of the means (such as a threatened collective default on the debt) by which this revolution can take place. Until the nouveau-ancien regime has been overthrown, and Lamy and Zoellick and their kind are (metaphorically) swinging from the lampposts, the rich, like the aristocrats of France, will devise ever more inventive means of dispossessing the poor.

Your opinion?

ttalady answered on 09/03/03:

Honestly I read the first paragraph and skipped to the last. I don't need to read it I live it. I am consider the upper class in America. Our household is that of $50,000 a year. Not even married yet however out of my income I loose at least 25% to taxes. Actually more like 50% when you consider past the actual pay check. The rich get richer, the poor just stay poor,and the middle class pays for it all. Hey I know I do not pay even close to that of a millionare however a millionare also knows how to hide their monies! As well many of our government officials that have not paid taxes for many years. Call it a fringe benefit of being in the system.

Middle class is the majority of us. My household income is considered to be that of well off. Let me tell you, my family had dealing with being well off, it was not living pay check to pay check.

I have no doubt in my mind that eventually the rich and the poor will have a rude awakening. Oh, left out the Government as well. The middle are the fighters, the soldiers in life, the ones that make things possible for all spectrums. We work to pay our bills, we are just starting to see the light, and in all the ones that pay the dearest shall come out better eventually. All we ask for is our due respect in life!

The funny thing is, the people in the middle. We have gardens that we tend to, have true hunters to speak for, and in all the knowledge it would take to survive without a system at hand. The middle ones are the thinkers and will survive with whatever may come. We are what one would call true survivors of life!

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 08/31/03 - How can we justify our assumptions

?

ttalady answered on 09/03/03:

Algebra teacher, 10th grade.

ASSUME= to make an ASS out of U and ME!

Math teachers, I tell ya, however can relate such to the basic life trials. I signed up for Accounting 101, hey going back to college! Had to get my books, $160 OUCH! All used books gone so had to travel to the actual college to get the books, my schooling being at another site. Doing this during my hour lunch break from work. Walk in the main lobby area, see the sign for Bookstore, and a line at least 100 people long. "Here we go, five days before the beginning of classes, Labor Day weekend here, I am going to pay for my lack of funds for my books". I move up by ten people, just another 90 or so to go. Then I began thinking, what if this is not the line for the bookstore but something else. No way, it says the bookstore with an arrow so I must assume all are in line for books. So I ask the girl in front of me "Is this the line to buy books", "Yes", she says with all sorts of fact in her face. As well three people ahead of her saking there heads yes with that sense of termoil on their faces. So I wait, watching people go in yet those faces not coming out of the "exit". Those people having books in their just bought bags however my assumption that it is just so long I don't recall their faces. 45 minutes and I made it to the door, I notice signs saying "Have ready form of ID for picture". Picture, what picture? Sure enough this was a line for student ID which NO ONE KNEW. Many had to do such therefore did not mind. I was peed off, more at myself, however had to tell the clerk that many out there ASSUME that is the line for books as well as college ID. It was a fact!

So all assumed before me, I assumed, and all that asked for the fact got an answer of ones that mearly were assuming. All were wrong including me as well as the ones asking the ones in line assuming we knew! See how it makes an ASS out of U and ME!

To justify an assumption is no different than justifying a decision. An assumption is knowing you do not know the fact however make a decision on such. A decision we could find fine at the time however with time proves itself wrong. As well in my clear case of how my assumption seemed justfied however was totally incorrect. Anything can be justified at that time, however with all that comes with such involves proof and an outcome.

An assumption seems to me to be nothing more than debate/arguement/ideas. Such a wonderful thing when it goes right but can bite you in the A** when it does not!

:)

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 08/28/03 - Do you think AIDS exists?

So, a friend of mine at work has AIDS (or maybe not =)
He was diagnosed with AIDS like 9 years ago and for 2 years did nothing about it. And then for 5 years he took AZT. Then he did a bunch of research and decided it was all a hoax and stopped taking AZT for 2 years now. He has never felt better in his life and he's never been healthier and never looked better. That's not proof or anything. =)

Anyhow, so he gave me a video which was as biased as pro-AZT videos are and any video that insists the existence of AIDS is true. So, it's hard to trust it. But if they are telling the truth it is hard to deny. Who knows if they are telling the truth?

One of the biggest pieces of evidence by Peter Duesberg was that HIV is a retrovirus and a retrovirus has never and can never damage t-cells. In fact they would have the opposite effect. Another idea is that the proof of AIDS in the system is
Pneumonia - HIV = pneumonia
Pneumonia + HIV = AIDS

If that's true it's bullshit scientific method. But who knows if it is true.

This Dusberg fellow says that the normal association of AIDS making one sick is actually a lifestyle issue more often than not. The AIDS affect of one being sick actually often comes from people using drugs that lead to what would be seen as the sickness from the AIDS infection. So, giving people ready access to needles is therefore making things worse.

And obviously the motivation is big business for the drug companies.

Anyhow, there's a lot more info on these sites:

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/controversy.htm

http://www.duesberg.com/


So, what do you guys think? Does AIDS exist or is it a huge hoax?

ttalady answered on 08/29/03:

Well I can not speak on the medical terminoligy of this however on the more spiritual and life side of this.

Aids I believe is a true disease, whether it be in the way the medical field has claimed it, or just the fact of how one with it can die. As with cancer, same scenerio! With both there is no cure, there is no pinpoint to both, only possible ways of avoiding such.

The "leading" cause for cancer is smoking. Now something to think about, I am a smoker yet trying to quit, is that it is not so much the need for the drug in a smoke, it is the stress free you feel in having that smoke. It is more of a habit, a routine, not something that you relapse on due to the lack of this. As where high stress people have a higher probabilty of getting cancer smoker or non-smoker. It has been studied!

With Aids I believe there is no doubt that there is an actual virus that comes into the body. However, again, I do believe it is more in the up keep of the body that can depend on the seriousness of this disease. Again I believe the actual virus is more serious when we have a stressor at hand.

How I get my beliefs is due to when I was 16. I had this funny rash all over my back on the right side. Went to the doctors and the doc tells me I have a form or herpes! WHAT?? Of course he explained what is really was was a reoccurance of the chicken pox better known as shingles. The first question he asked me was "Have you been stressed lately", my reply "Well yes, I'm 16". He explained that it is very odd for me to have this at such a young age, all most all do not get this, if they get this, well into their 60's. This makes sense, the stress issue with the age of 60. Sixty is getting closer to the body needing more, having used so much up in prior years.

Stress brings on illness, there is no question about this. Couch potatos live longer due to the lack of using vital vitamins compared to a runner. Weight not being figured into this, just ambition and physical aspects of using the body.

Your co-worker should do what feels right. Not just in his/her mind, in the way this person is feeling in and out. I have faith in doctors and hopes that they will find the answers however I must question when they contradict themselves constantly. Bacon and eggs are bad for the heart, no you can eat them all you want, ok eat them but in moderation. There is contant changing in the field of medicine and my guess is because they are still in much discovery. Everything we eat is to be in moderation however pop them pills every day? Heck 50% of our younger generation are on some sort of pills to "control" their behavior. Every drug out there has an equal and opposite affect to the issue. If your co-worker is doing good by his means then why not stay with it? It all depends if you can deal with a quality of life over quanity, or quanity over quality. Send my prayers!

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 08/28/03 - Conspiracy theories

There have been conspiracies. For instance, the assassination of Lincoln was the result of a conspiracy.
But, the term, "conspiracy theory" is often used dyslogistically ("negatively") to imply that the theory is false: As for instance, when people say that the view that the murder of JFK was not the doing of a lone assassin, but part of a larger plot, is a "conspiracy theory."

What is a conspiracy theory, and what is its "logic?"


ttalady answered on 08/29/03:

One recent conspiracy theory that is well know in the media and paper has to do with the recall in CA. The Dem's have started this theory stating with actions starting back with the Presidency of Clinton, up to current events, the Republican party is trying to "steal" power. Now I have not doubt that may be legit with certain parties in the Republican party however to accuse all Republican's, as I mostly am, makes it false as you rightly pointed out.

I think that conspiracy theories are not all false however there is never enough truth or facts to make something fact. In your examples with JFK and Lincoln, now as much as we know of the facts does not mean there is not more out there that one or many know of opposite facts. One that may support an existing theory or one that may support something beyond ever thought of. In all conspiracy theory is simply put a theory that one or many can not prove.

Why bother with conspiracy theories? For me it is the simple pleasure and teaching of looking outside the obvious. The pictures taken of Mars that clearly shows what looks like that of faces, creatures, however many scientists say they are mear creations of wind and sand. Wind and sand is logic, it has been studied, there is proof that wind and sand can create such pictures. This leaves the skeptics to there conspiracy theory being they have no proof of how it became yet believe it is beyond that of nature.

Christopher Columbus was laughed at with the belief the world was round and not flat. I am sure the man that developed the first ship was laughed at with the thoughts of wood actually floating with people aboard. Events that follow eachother must have some sort of pattern to knowledge. As with humans, we follow events, what we do does affect our future, and that alone can be considered consiracy. Imagine what life would be today with out such "false" theories. At those times being considered such until they were proven true. It is the hope, imagination, and hard work of one that can benefit many, protect many, and advance knowledge for many.

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 08/27/03 - Biology and women's minds point but

Andiri brought up a good point:
"I would be inclined to lay that at the feet of culture rather than biology, and as such likely to change quickly."

He and DC are totally right that a huge aspect of how women think and act are due to the fact that they (as DC kind of put it) just got out of the kitchen. But some of it has to do with biology. The ideal biological situation for sperm carriers is to try to impregnate everything (notice that would make them aggressive, forceful, prolific, etc...) And the ideal biological situation for an egg carrier is to be selective about who impregnates the eggs (selective, withdrawn, coy, and careful). Now, it's not proof at all, but there is some indication that should not be ignored. That men have the personality qualities of sperm carriers and women have the personality qualities of egg carriers.

This is not always the case but it certainly is a majority.

Does anyone have any ideas about this?

ttalady answered on 08/27/03:

Kind of repeating myself from my last answer but no problem. It is beyond all that was said above and before. Well including I guess, biologically most definately however not all on those terms. The idea of sex, a women goes on feeling a man on the act. I guess you could call this selective however this is more selective in ones mind with a woman over the actual partner involved. The "Do I feel like it" "Am I in the mood" "I just want to talk", oh boy can I go on. The act itself in most cases involves much feeling for a woman. For a man feeling is much involved as well but on a different level. To a man it is of being accepted, of being wanted, and having that dominace. Men are visual, women are emotional. We think on two different levels.

An example, I see this lady, kind of on the not well off side, tatooed, huge hikky on her neck, and a man next to her. I think, how sad, how did she let herself get that way, and what is he giving her to look as she does. My bf says, I would not touch her with a 50 foot pole, nasty. I have never ever known a man to bargain shop. To look for the sale items. When men shop they go in, find what they like, and end of story. Women feel better hitting the sale racks, coming home with 3 outfits even if not the ones, and getting a "deal". Men go in with what they want, see it, grab it, done deal.

I totally agree with, "I would be inclined to lay that at the feet of culture rather than biology, and as such likely to change quickly." Both sexes have been opening up to the differences we have. Emotional, knowledgable, ect. Most women are out the kitchen however are having a hard time competing. As it should be. However there is that attitude on both sides with this women's lib thing. For some women, give us more and more, with most men, you asked for it now show us. It is high competition in life now. Who is the bread winner, who raises the kids, do we want children or do we compete in our careers. It is changing, couples are having 1.5 kids as where years ago it was 2.5. Free love is gone, welcoming Aids!

I question that if male and female become so equal in life, where does that leave our future of children? I do believe some things are better off as they are.

Do note that our younger generation is not " The ideal biological situation for sperm carriers is to try to impregnate everything (notice that would make them aggressive, forceful, prolific, etc...) And the ideal biological situation for an egg carrier is to be selective about who impregnates the eggs (selective, withdrawn, coy, and careful)." Now-a-days these young women are on the aggressive, provacative, side as where men are more stand-off-ish. Men/boys would rather have a good girl than one that has been around the block a time or two, which speaks itself for emotional dealings.

tta



ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 08/27/03 - Girls and Philosophy

Hi everyone,
I was following the discussion on the previous question with some interest. I understood the asker's complaint once I knew she is a girl :) ! Personally, I don't think philosophy is compatible with the way a woman's/girl's mind operate. Among the several girls I knew (whom I could never work out any relation with any of them :), none of them had any appreciation of philosophy whatsoever. One of them even was telling me: "you are very good person, but philosophy is really your (only) problem :) !!"
Any comments :) ??

Hussein

ttalady answered on 08/27/03:

Hello Hussein!

I will try and answer this as "unemotionally" as possible but being female, it can be a down fall.LOL

I believe you are correct that women have a harder time connecting to philosophy. I believe women are more involved in their emotions rather than the thinking side of things. Including myself of course. However I also believe that women do use philosophy more in life then men do. They use this in raising children, trying their best to keep their men happy, and in all relationships. Men are very visual as women are very much on the feeling part. Hey, I did not decide this one! It is just a fact of life.

I don't know if you ever noticed this but I have noticed that most women when in reply to a why question is "I felt...." as where men are "I thought....". Not all cases of course however it is definately there. Philosophy is not about having a bad day, feeling in the dumps, feeling true love, ect ect. It is about thought and theory. One can take a feeling and turn it into a theory, however the feeling itself is not truely a part of philosophy. Does that make sense? To me it does?

As for "you are very good person, but philosophy is really your (only) problem :) !!", on the female side I believe she is telling you that she does not feel it is right that her only way to get close to you is reading the latest in philosophy; just to hold a conversation. As the saying goes "Too much of anything is not good for you". Then again finding the limits is the tough part.

Philosophy has been the gift of man. The reality of women not possesing that need for such seems pretty simple to me. We think differently, we deal differently, and we ask different questions. Most women do not want to know what goes on in men's minds as most men do not want to know what goes on in women's minds. The real stuff that is. Women want to know the feeling part as where men are wondering where the thinking part is, LOL. Just a joke.

Some of the best auto mechanics are that of women, some of the best hair dressers are that of men. It seems that the only field in life that has become equal in both men and women is that of the Arts. From dancing to painting, from writing to musicians, it is one true field that has equalled itself out, then again I do not believe or think it was ever sided.

The possibilities are endless for knowledge, professions, ect. It just might be women have no interest in what another thinks for women feel way more than they think! Not all, but the many.

:)



chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
rosends asked on 08/22/03 - Familial nomenclature

Note -- this question is not meant facetiously or to cause anyone pain -- it is a real question I have.

If someone (god forbid) loses a child and then has another, can you say to the second child "You had a sibling"? That child never was alive when the sibling was so were they brothers?
thanks

ttalady answered on 08/22/03:

Could you, yes, should you, no. It would be correct to say that there was once a child that was before you yet passed on however in my opinion it would be wrong to say such to a child. With this question you only question what is good for the here and now child. It is beyond fact it is beyond even a belief, it is soley based on why a child should know that a miracle did not happen the first time yet the second. An adult child would understand, if need be, however an adult child would know this happens and would question if need be.

This is totally a belief question in my eyes. Then again it is a moral question in what is right, not necessarily true.

I am all for the belief that when sperm hits and egg and begins its miracle it is a child, a life. However when a life comes into the world, less the womb, it now has to deal with society and the rest of the world. Too much to learn, to much to live with, but all in living.

Now, if the first child was born and passed on, then with age a child could be told of the "brother". Again my opinion is if there is reason for this, something to benefit the second child, something to learn from.

An answer to this is all in "would you need to know"? Would it benefit your life or teach you further. I believe it would be depressing, not much to learn about, and a fact that a child would learn about such in his/her time.

Check out the next question! Quite the stickler!!

tta:)

rosends rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 08/21/03 - no more talk of road-maps and peace

And then, of course, there is the murder of scores of Israelis on a bus in Jerusalem, after the murder organisations had promised a truce. I suppose that the strain of refraining from murdering Jews became too much for them, and they buckled under it. Let us hope there will be no more talk of road-maps and peace processes.
____________________________________________________
The above quote by jon brought to mind how things are progressing with the George W. Bush "roadmap" for peacethe step-by-step outline of Palestinian measures, Israeli concessions, and international monitoring, which is to culminate in the establishment of an independent, democratic Palestinian state by the year 2005.

Many claimed U.S. victory over Saddam would open the way to a revived peace process that it would create a moment of opportunity, because of the domino effect it would have in, not only the mid-east but around the world. By Ephraim Halevys version of the domino theory, all the pieces would fall in the right direction. Iran and Syria, without Saddam to unite them, would draw apart, creating an independent Lebanon free of terror, and paving the way for a comprehensive peace in the region.

Maj.-Gen. Amos Gilad, Israel's official "national commentator" on the war, who went so far as to describe the war plans as a miracle cure-all for everything from Israeli security to economic woes.
The American media at times went even further, suggesting that the whole point of the war was to eliminate the Iraqi threat to Israel.

At least one kool head saw through all the wild speculation, Lieut.-Gen. Moshe ("Bugi") Ya'alon, the Israeli chief of staff, kept Israel's strategic environment in focus. Ya'alon said, ------"Iraq's capabilities are shallow compared to what they were in the Gulf war. They are not capabilities that give me sleepless nights Obviously we have to prepare for the possibility that they will launch a missile but the threat itself is _limited_. It might be unpleasant, but not terrible." And another time "The Iraqi threat does not keep me up at night it does not pose an existential threat to the State of Israel."

With the attack on the U.N. based in Iraq, the oil pipeline, the water supply, and, by all other evidence, it seems the toppling of Hussein has only so far added fuel to terrorism, and the road map to peace is really a road map to hell. Perhaps the way to fight our war on terrorism should be re-thought.

ttalady answered on 08/22/03:

We must look past the obvious! Have you ever seen a wounded crow? Where there is a flock of crows and one lay wounded they all flock around that crow to see what is going on. Circling and circling. Maybe in protection for the wounded, maybe just to finish off what is left of its life. The US strategy is not that of an immediate peace. It is to wound the crow and bring out the rest for free fire! Nothing meant by the crow part DC, just a fact of nature.

This may totally be not intended, this whole bringing out all the terrorist of the world to show their faces, however I find this quite brilliant! The US can not go it alone with this war on terrorism, the fact that the UN bomb happened gave not only the US more reason to fight this war however brought many on board. Now we are seeing all sorts of faces with this terror deal, we are seeing our enemy and can do our strategic plans. It is a game a chess, if you are good you will out wit the player,you will fore see the next move, and you will bring out a dangerous move to see what the other is thinking.

Call me foolish, call me whatever, but I believe there are some major tatics going on here that are beyond what we could even imagine. The allowing of terrorists into Iraq, no one patrolling the boarders and I know, not enough soldiers, is that so or is it a lure to bring them in. Let's see them, let's get to know them, and then let's take them out?

Hamas, a well known terrorist organization for many years. Bush just now, this week, cutting off Hamas funds labeling them "terrorists". Hmmmm.... The silence at 9/11 put the US into a hole. You can not get the snake if the snake is in it's hole. You give it food it will come out with a vengance. My concern is we gave fuel to the fire, can we put it out let alone be a controlled burn? Time will tell and lives will be lost.

It has been mere months from the war on Iraq. Anyone that would expect this to be a go in, free the people, and the rest of the Middle East would be in peace is just rediculious. Bush will not finish this war during his term, two terms (hopefully). Nothing is perfect however it seems quite excellent to me we are seeing our enemies instead of guessing who they are. I'ld rather someone punched me in the face than behind the head!!

Ya think?

tta:)

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 08/18/03 - What is

responsibility?

ttalady answered on 08/20/03:

Responsibilty is a direct action to a decision. Or lack of responsibility to a decision. It is "There is an equal and opposite reaction to an action". I believe that was somewhere in science, Earth science I believe but does relate to this.

However there is also the pre-decision part which is the planning of the responsibility. To way out the decision on two sides and see where the responibility fits. As where a bartender serves another alcohol. With one there may come a time to decide for this person if he/she really can handle another drink. While the customer is obviously just thinking of the next drink and not of the decision he/she is really making. All responsibility is now on this bartender and best planned is to call a cab.

The word itself "Responsibility" sounds so noble doesn't? However the most noble of people can take responsibility for even the times they were moral and justified in an action however the reaction was not what was planned/expected.

A personal example of mine, and I don't really find myself noble yet working on this. A girlfriend and co-worker of mine recently had a baby boy. She has seemed pretty blah lately and confided that she wished she were home with the little one. I was unable to get into depth with her on the subject, being at work, yet later decided to write her an email from my home to hers. My opinion/beliefs/morals being that people have children to raise them. There is such a difference between one that is a parent and one that is a Mom or Dad. I shared my support and beliefs to her on this for the only hopes of her thinking out side the norm these days. My decision to do so was soley based upon my beliefs and morals as well as hoping to help the little ones out in this world that are lacking Moms and Dads. My decision also came with thinking out the possible reaction from her. Would it be beneficial or would it be harming to our casual friendship. The good out wayed the bad and by a major one side of good. In hopes the baby boy would have a mother that was taking care of him 24/7 instead of another raising the child for her.

I have yet to see anything from my letter and if there is absolutely no response, good or bad, I will be totally satified with my decision. Responsibility is a reaction to a decision, good or bad in outcome.

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 08/15/03 - Correlation

It suddenly occurred to me that there might be a direct correlation between the amount that people don't know, and the amount they believe is not known.

ttalady answered on 08/15/03:

Well that would kind of be me however that is what I would call ambition of knowledge. No one knows everything. No one knows all that the world has proof on. I always questioned the IQ tests being many of the questions relate to facts however that does not guarantee one did not just guess and get lucky!

I would say you are correct with that statement with the exception that there are gifted ones that may excell in memory however understanding the actual puzzle of the facts may never be there. It truely depends on what you are looking for in a person. One that can name the past Presidents in the last 50 years or one that can tell you the biography of one president with him living 50 years.

We are all knowlegdable in our own eyes!

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 08/15/03 - "Militant Islam is the problem,

According to Islamic scholar Daniel Pipes, "Militant Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution.",--- shouldnt moderate Islam be leading the charge against Islamic Terrorism in the world today?

ttalady answered on 08/15/03:

With what?? Moderate Islam is just as scared and I am sure they figure if they just stay out of it all will work itself out. What do they have to gain or loose? I would guess that 100 of Islamist overseas agree with Osama. Not to the point of their destruction of lives however they are mostly happy with his train of though. They just can not pull themselves to murder! The ones in the US may be more torn however I truly believe the more torn is in regards to the rights they have in the US and not so much about the actual people that they live with.

I am ashamed at the Islamic US public for not having rallied against the act of 9/11 let alone coming out and saying they are being mistreated due to 9/11. For every action there is a reaction and I am sure that Muslims in the US may have been mistreated shortly after 9/11. That is not when you cower and hide, that is when you stand up and say "Yes I am a Muslim American and I love America, down with Osama".

If Daniel Pipes is such the scholar it seems he would start the Islamic movement for this to show the support beyond that of radical muslims. I will respect anyone's religion until that religion does harm to me, my family, my country. I guess there is much to be said about being an American and just living in America!

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 08/15/03 - Beauty

What is beauty? Does it have any significance? If so, what?

ttalady answered on 08/15/03:

Now this is one to think about! Hmmmm....

I would have to say it is a personal preference. Not everyone in the world agrees on something, someone, or a notion to be that of beauty. The significance holds quite highly in my eyes however does depend on what another would consider to be beautiful. Radical Islam considers 9/11 to be that of beauty. Based on their radical views and their beliefs 9/11 was a beautiful thing. Many say that Jennifer Lopez has beauty as well as Julia Roberts. I find Jennifer Lopez as far from holding beauty due to her actions as well as my father says "What's the big deal with Julia Roberts, I find nothing attractive let alone holding beauty".

There are all different catagories when it comes to beauty as there are with someone being moral. It all depends on the one judging such. The significance is that what one judges as beauty is as well judged on them as if they are that for another person. It tells much of ones personallity as well morals. It tells of ones life style.

The most beautiful person I have encountered in my life so far is that of a girl from school. I had the honor of seeing her once again at my 10th year reunion this year and even beyond honor she was the only one I truly wanted to see. Not to see if she changed, what she looked like, but all in all just to let her know I had been thinking about her and to thank her for having been such a sweet person to know. She has been overweight all her life which of course caused many to belittle her in school. I never had the guts to meet her until it came that we were chemistry partners. She was far from being "ugly" in any sense however I guess I always figured from her years of torment through grade school up that she would have been quite the sour person. I was totally wrong in that let alone the true intelligance of this girl. As I had learned to judge others so quickly she had learned not to judge. I had the best time with her at the reunion and truly learned that there are too many in this world that mold others into what they think they are, not based on facts of a person. I was once there, I know, but this girl, angel, changed my perspective in life and people and showed me that you can never know a person through others. It is one on one time that lets one decided on who another is. The rest is all perception and guessing!

I have heard so... many say that new born babies are ugly. That they just come out ugly. I never got that being how can a miracle be ugly? I believe the power of beauty is much greater than most know it to be. Many find it to be a symbol of something they are not, do not have, or can not do. However beauty is truly just the fact that we are all miracles, we all have "inperfections", and just that we are.

I'm having a brain freeze on the name of this movie however it has Gweneth Paltro and this other guy that is on Saturday night live. Story about a man looking for the "hot" chick, another man puts a spell on him to see the true beauty of a woman, and in the end he does see it. So many found the movie degrading and others found it hilarious. I found it quite the learning tool as well as sad and happy. It went further than the woman factor into just people. The moral being that beauty lies in our beliefs and in our hearts.

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 08/13/03 - Why does everyone seem so terrified of gays?

Why does everyone seem so terrified of gays? From the outrage over the repeal of sodomy laws to the furor over the possibility gay marriage to walkouts and a potential international rift in the Anglican church over the confirmation of a gay bishop.

I think it is great what they are doing for the population control effort. Go Gays!!!

ttalady answered on 08/13/03:

Hey DC! Little old me, I hope I did not make you upset with the whole "inner self" deal. I was just in a joking mood and hey, I gave it a shot! LOL

As for my fears, not terrified, is that of the extreem gays. NO different than that of extreem whites, blacks, heteros, pro life, pro choice, anything beyond the glasses that should show everyone in life and enough of this "it is not fair" stuff. I ask "Who said life was fair?".

My concern with the gay population is no different than that of sex education in schools. What makes a person gay? Truely gay, is it who they love? NO! Is it who they want to spend the rest of their life with? No! It is all in the act of sex as where there are PIGS in this world. Ones that want to spread out all of sex. Want to explain this and that and to say you are this and that.

I am fearful of the teachings we are giving and recieving. That it is okay to ALWAYS feel as we do sexually. It is not ALWAYS okay and why is because there are circumstances involved in sex. It is not a freebee in life and let alone should be taken very seriously. This is coming from a woman that lost her virginity at 16. I got lucky, was not pregnant, no diseases, however I regret having done it so young in life. I do not regret with who, I regret with myself and when.

To be totally honest, I believe that this is just the struggle continuing. From slavery to freeing and from freeing still they do not feel they are being heard. I hear them! Now from slavery to sex. I hear you, now enough. I can not turn black, I can not be gay, I am who I am.

Do not think so highly on this! As in population control. Hello, they have the sperm banks! If one wants to live female to female, male to male, that is ones choice. As where I hate science for having the ability to just make a child over a needle and not the act of love. My father always said "If it was not meant to be it is not meant to be".

DC, life is being messed with. That is my #1 concern. I do not care for the ones that are living, I care for the ones that could possibly be brought into this world through science. I am sick of the teachings in our schools, wonder about the growth of our young ones, and hope that at 28 I have much to give to improve society.

Parents are never home these days. Both working jobs, and the children left to figure out so much at the prime of life. We wonder why so many are confused let alone lonely in life finding their bestfriend to be their partner and sticking with it. This is beyond church beyond a belief it is the one thing that is suppose to show us the way.

My only fear is that we all can trust in a God however can never understand the purpose of mankind. We are a part a nature, if we take that away, then what is to become of us?

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 08/13/03 - Limit to knowledge

I think there is one basic limit to knowledge (of the Universe, God, and ourselves), that is in any type of thinking, our perception forces us to think in terms of "figure-ground" or Gestalt as it is called in psychology. We reduce everything to simple "objects" that we focus on and ignore the rest, in order to make some sense of what is going on.
I'm claiming that our perception intrnisically acts as a barrier to total knowledge.

Hussein

ttalady answered on 08/13/03:

I have been saying this forever!! Not in those words however, low on the intelligence dipstick here!

I will always go back to childhood when we are said to know so... little yet our capability to learn so fast with ideas of our own is astounding. As I said my nephew was here a couple of weeks ago and boy did it bring in such new light. We had a fire one night to make Smores and being 10 he was excited and wired. After finishing his snack he decided to play with the fire. Of course Auntie had a careful eye but let me tell you when he took two sticks and had just the very tips of them red hot and he put them out in front and just swirrelled them, it was just amazing. A light show itself and I don't know if I was amazed at the tracing or more of seeing a child create art in the air. He honestly painted a picture in the air and it was just incredible! I had to look over to my better half and sure enough he was just watching in amazement as I.

Our only limit to knowledge is not giving into what we don't know. We are taught to "go by the book, learn from others mistakes, and to never face what scares us". The last one being yeah or nay depending on what society you live in I suppose.

Some of the best knowledge comes from mashed potatoes!! Another short story, I'll try. I can remember as a child during Thanksgiving always trying to make a wall in my mash potatoes so I could pour the gravey in the middle. Now some call that playing with your food however in our family it was just letting kids be kids (that's what they thought). 15 years after the fact my bf is beginning the process of building a pond. Digging, creating, whatever! But in this says he knows what he is doing. He "saw" it done he "had talked to the pond builders prefectionist", however I told him once I saw the berm that it was not going to work. He said "why?" I said mashed potatoes and gravy. I explained my reasoning and the truth stand I did not include a higher pressure however my reasoning was justified with the blow out! What he saw what he ask, what he learned was all about the simplicity of getting water into the pond, never the simplicity of dirt holding the water! MASHED POTATOES!

We have pond #2 on the works and no mashed potatoes yet now holes! I must think of my younger days and remember how to create once again! We are born with so... very much, it is some of life that binds us from the truth!

:)

hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
HANK1 asked on 08/10/03 - IS THIS REALITY?


Materialism, in my opinion, means a devotion to $$$ and worldly things, to the EXCLUSION of spiritual and intellectual values! Are most American corporations guilty of this devotion?

HANK

ttalady answered on 08/13/03:

Using "guilty" sounds quite harsh. Then again I suppose you may mean this is quite different terms. As where I could say I am guilty of being a blonde?

Anyway my opinion is that any company in the world is guilty of one thing and one alone, the need for power. Money ='s power in this world however I will say that the most powerful companies, excluding that of the ex-Enron, spreads wealth to others as well. For instance Microsoft. The poor guy just can not shake off the blood sucking lawyers!

Mr. Bill Gates starts off with just an idea, makes it and in the time of making it he gives all of his employees shares of the company. He did not just keep the billions more that he could have however his idea, hoping that his idea would go, was to make it a Microsoft world. To think of all of the issues that company could have and should have being just a company and the only issue ever is that they are too.... good! The man and his employees are just incredible in my mind let alone very rich!

Bill Gates is Microsoft. With out him it would not have run, even with out that other guy, geez I forgot his name, loaded as well and ownes a ball team I believe. I have been by Bill Gates house in Seattle WA, via boat, and let me tell you, it was not at all what I expected. I expected that of a palace, that which would make the Queen of England look middle class, and what I saw was that of a house that was just there. I have heard the inside is just incredible however in the sense of being Materialistic, that is the last thing I saw!

Microsoft, I truly believe, has no devotion to $$$. I honestly believe their 100% devotion is to inventing the best and newest line of programming possible. The proof in my eyes lies in how he could jump out of his business right now never having to worry about his great, great, great, great,...... grandchildren in the sense of $$ or things. As well many if not all of his employees. There is such a thing in life as passion, the passion for achieving more in life and the #1 company in America has that.

It is only the little dog that sits on the porch afraid to play with the big dogs, however the little dog tends to wine a bit! Those are the companies that show such!

:)tta

HANK1 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
CeeBee asked on 08/07/03 - Life after this one --

I posted this on the Christianity board, and several experts told me that the Philosophy board would give me REALLY GOOD answers!!:

We all know the Bible verses that support this. I don't want to read those in answer to my question. (I can find them in my Bible as fast as you can in yours lol.) What I REALLY want here is non-religious or even logical reasons to support the idea that there is an afterlife. (These would be lead-ins to testifying to a person who is an atheist or agnostic or at least someone who is sort of interested.)0

ttalady answered on 08/08/03:

I can not think of a true logical reason to support life after death. It is truely based on believe for no-one can prove such. Even the ones that claim they have experianced souls that have passed on, there is still no solid proof to this.

In dealing with atheists or agnostics. The simplicity is that EVERYONE believes in something. This is what matters let alone makes us all human. The fact one does not believe in a God does not mean that one does not believe in something greater in life. I am far from atheist myself however could understand how one may be that. There is just no proof of a God in simple terms that is.

Our only proof comes with dying/passing on. Just think how much people share in life. All of the knowledge, feelings, life experiances. Maybe this one is meant to be as it is. A SECERET! As long as one believes in good and decency then life is grand.

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
CeeBee rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 08/08/03 - Materialim assumptions

Is the assumption that everything that exists can be observed and/or measured justifiable?

ttalady answered on 08/08/03:

Hussein-

I was told once in school that there are organisms so..... small that they are unable to be seen. Not just by the human eye but even that of the highest powered microscope. They are there, not truely justified let alone observed but according to scientist they exsist. As with the many galaxies that are said to be out there yet can not be seen.

I believe the true art of science as well as math is that of imagination. It is what brings on the wanting and need to know. In 8th grade we had a project of this sort. We were asked to explain what Earth really is and of course support our answers. Mine was that Earth is a mear cell of a plant. We had studied plant as well as animal cells and I found that Earth is much like that of a plant cell. If only I could remember all the factors, LOL! Hey, I got an A+ based upon my supporting a possibility!!

Much of what does exsist, exsists in our minds. We create or find the proof to make what is real real. If only science could explain the working of the mind. Not just how it works but why it works as it does. To think of all of the issues we would have answers for!

Have a :) day!
tta

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 07/22/03 - "Illegal combatants" held in Guantanamo Bay

"Illegal combatants" held by US military guard in Guantanamo Bay for about 20 months, now faces a military tribunal and the possible death penalty.

How can any civilised society, that is the United States, justify that length of incarceration without even a charge and legal representation, let alone a trial?

Further, the term illegal combatants doesnt mean anything at international law, its a term used by the United States, they sometimes also say enemy combatant, I think essentially to evade the effect of international law thats relevant to prisoners of war. So its something that is favoured by the United States because they believe that using that term will avoid the effects, particularly of the Third Geneva Convention.

Please argue your case.

ttalady answered on 07/24/03:

These prisoners are living are they not? They are eating, breathing, chances are sending letters home to loved ones from time to time. The US has thousands dead from 9/11, wifes with out husbands, husbands with out wifes, children with out parents, must I go on.....

I find where they are to be no different then where they were. Were they not just as captive in their own countries? Let alone then they were most likely starving, poor, maybe even homeless. Heck, they have it good now!

They did not have to fight, they chose to. As where you saw with Iraq when the Iraqi soldiers had the white shown they were let go. What a mistake that was HUH? Now we have lost more men than the actual fighting part.

They are being fed, have medical attention, exercised and I know have it better than any US troops that have been prisoners of war!! I have not heard of one yet that has been beated to death! Give me a break, these "prisoners" are on the vacation of a life time. I feel more for the guards that must have to put up with what they try to pull on them!

As for the court system, I leave it in the militaries hands. They were the ones fired upon they are the ones to give them the justice they deserve or do not.

chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux asked on 07/21/03 - I Need Some Help Understanding Something

I am confused over the following. If an individual creates an "imaginary" world and sells a lot of books, and lots of people read this book, then, they argue over the contents of the book as being logical, cite quotations to make a case, etc...well, what would that be called. That is, they are discussing something made up, and are trying to be logically consistent within this world. What is that called.

My problem is that since what they are arguing is not "real" as in reality.

Does the above fall under the definition of philosophy, logic, whatever.

ttalady answered on 07/24/03:

More like "Logically consistent in their world". This goes back to the belief factor. As well as an obsession factor. Dungeons and Dragons, God that was one of those games that became reality for many. Kids and even some of the older generation playing the part, becoming the game. I never got it. Then came along American Idol. Bored on a Tuesday night and decided to check it out. Sick of the news. I was hooked. Hooked from day one however would not call it obsessed with such. My fav singer would come up and I would be talking out loud saying "Sing it, no wrong cord, move around", almost like I was coaching the person. I was into it and that is all I can explain. In another world to where I felt this was a student and I was to coach this person.

Anyway to get to the point, this I believe does not fit in the realm of philosophy, logic, whatever (possibly this), but more of the psychological aspect of the brain. Much like us as children. We all had the favorite super hero, the imaginary games of being He-Man, Superman, Superwoman, ect ect. We would act them out and even at time argue over who had what weapon or power. During this time we were that person. I find it sad when adults can take it to the extreme as they do. To argue over a book of any sort that is meant to be for learning let alone fun. How we have become so uncontrollable of our imaginations to have to pick apart something to the point it is no fun anymore. As children it would never get to this point. Once the fighting started the imagination left, the game ended, and the next day once again the imagination appeared to play with once again.

Plain and simple, you can not argue, debate, over something that is from the imagination of ones mind. Sure you can try however the one person that created such is the only one that is factual in what that person made!

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 07/20/03 - Is the Western Mind Closed?

Is the Western mind closed in the sense of an awareness and indeed understanding of the nuances of other cultures, ideas, politics, religion etc. I think the West can learn much from an engagement with the rest of the world and their ideas. What do you think?

ttalady answered on 07/24/03:

In other words "Do Westerners live in la la land and need a wake up call to reality?". Hey, I like to say it like it is, or is not!! I would say this is a 50/50 deal but only in the context of what one wishes to know, understand, and live with. Growing up in the 80's everything was about starving people. People dying here and there due to lack of food as well as medication. Every other commercial had to do with giving donations to feed the hungery. Must be we did our job being there are far and few of those around anymore.

Westerners have learned so.... very much from all other countries. That is why the US and Canada do so well. From the mistakes of other countries we have learned to go past such issues accepting other religions, trying our best to get over the race issue, and most of all the people controlling the government, not visa versa. Now in all of these there are times when they do not work or are gone against however that is human! We are not machines, we make mistakes, and we learn from mistakes we make.

I believe the US is a la la land. A place where anything is possible as long as you put in your fare share and treat your land as you would family. Since 9/11 I have realized how GOOD I have it as well as all Americans. The dealings with Afganistan, Iraq, possibly Liberia, and who knows, maybe N Korea. I don't know what more you could learn from countries like these other than having pity for them. There are many things I would personally like to see changed with our government but not based on others, based on morals as well as this Duh syndrome I have had lately.

There is much to be learned by Westerners. One of the BIGGEST issues, is how to get along in life. To do onto others as you wish done to you. That we have the freedom to choose our government and if that one does not work out, another will be elected. Westeners are taken for granted, they are seen as that of spoiled, no good, wants to start wars, people. But are we not that of the ones that rescue countries butts, feed the poor countries, give meds to the sick, more times than not Westeners are there for others.

All I have learned from other countries is how to feel pity for them as well as how much I LOVE my country, my land, my home. How lucky I am!!

chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 07/18/03 - Jim.McGinness or anyone else

Jim.McGinness-------perhaps you can answer another amateur question, since Ken did not address it-----is there any knowledge that could be called Inherited knowledge, and if so what can be said of it or if not why?

ttalady answered on 07/18/03:

I will give you an example in hopes not to seem rude let alone forward.

A girlfriend of mine just had a child. He is about 2 months old and she made a comment on how the child went for her breast to feed. She has never fed him that way, let alone he has never saw them however call it insinct, nature, that the child knew where the food was. Maybe in hopes she would have that closeness as well!

If we could remember our first 0-3 years of age we would have this inherited knowledge. There is something to be said about energy in one, something about what one experiance from pure pressence of another. Maybe I sense it more than others but all babies have that. I don't know how many baby babies you have been around but it has been my experiance when I have had a bad day, see a baby baby in a store and make eye contact, insta cry. Same deal yet in a good mood, still the same smile, and the baby coos and cas or just looks at you funny like, "What are you smiling about".

Knowledge is so much more instinct than that of what you get from the rest of the world. As I believe that the world does teach yet many times only brings out what we already know! How does a dog learn to lick their wounds? How does a Momma cat know how to feed her kittens? How does one know when to ask questions or even wonder about such?

With human knowledge we come to trust it. Never to look beyond that of "Human" dealings. We have these birds called "deerkill" birds on our pond. They have been here for a year yet are not accepting when we are at the pond. The mother makes all sorts of racket and we are not even close to the nest. Her instinct tells her this. We have hummingbirds that fly, let alone fight right in front of our face. It took some time for them to get use to us but they did learn to trust. Deerkill birds rely only on nature as where humans are not in that book. Hummingbirds in most cases will just take what ever they get from our feeders to the flowers we plant for them. There is quite the difference from what can live with humans to what can not!

True knowledge is what is there in us, yet blinded by what we want to know, and true understanding is always around us. We are destined to be born, to learn, and then to be reborn in our later years. To see all that we missed during our learning years being we tried so hard to figure it out. As where as a child you see a rainbow and try to find the end of it, as an adult in the middle years you know it is just the science of water and the sun, then at 75 you only hope to find the end of the rainbow once again. Think about it!!

Our knowledge we are born with. The things that make life what it is we are born with. If not why do every single one of us have the capability of wonderment?

tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Jim.McGinness rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 07/13/03 - What is al-Qaeda?

In this extract from his new book, Al-Qaeda: Casting a shadow of terror, The Observer's chief reporter, Jason Burke, looks at the true nature of bin Laden's organisation and why the west's misunderstanding of the broad and diverse phenomenon of modern Islamic militancy undermines its response to terrorism

Thirty years ago a new Islamic political ideology began to resonate amongst millions of young men and women across the Muslim world. This ideology was a sophisticated and genuine intellectual effort to find an Islamic answer to the challenges posed by the West's cultural, economic and political superiority. In the middle of the 20th century nationalist anti-imperialism was the dominant ideology. Then, at least in the Middle East, it was pan-Arabism. Both failed to solve the problems of the Islamic world. Now Islam is seen the solution. But over the decades Islamic activism has changed. Once Islamic activists thought primarily in terms of achieving power or reforming their own nation. There was room in their programme for gradualism and compromise, for a huge multiplicity of different strands of political thought, for the parochial, radical and conservative movements of rural areas and for the clever, educated and aware ideologues of the cities. There was also room, on the movement's periphery, for those extremists who were committed to violence and who saw the world as a battlefield between the forces of good and evil, of belief and unbelief.
But increasingly, and this is a trend that is accelerating, the extremists are no longer perceived as the "lunatic fringe". Instead they are seen as the standard bearers. And their language is now the dominant discourse in modern Islamic activism. Their debased, violent, nihilisitic, anti-rational millenarianism has become the standard ideology aspired to by angry young Muslim men. This is the genuine victory of bin Laden and our greatest defeat in the "war on terror".
In the weeks immediately following the tragedy of September 11th there was a genuine interest in understanding: why?. Why "they" hate us, why "they" were prepared to kill themselves, why such a thing could happen. That curiosity has dwindled and is being replaced by other questions: how did it happen, how many of "them" are there, how many are there left to capture and kill. Anyone who tries to "explain" the roots of the threat now facing all of us, to answer the "why", to elaborate who "they are", risks being dismissed as ineffectual or cowardly. To ask "why" is to lay oneself open to accusations of lacking the moral courage to face up to the "genuine" threat and the need to meet it with force and aggression. Many characterise this threat, dangerously and wrongly, as rooted in a "clash of civilizations."

What is your reaction to this extract? (For the full article refer to:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,996510,00.html

ttalady answered on 07/16/03:

Hello tonyrey!

My reaction to this extract is that of understanding human nature. Al Queda is nothing short of the gangs in the US. Maybe on a higher level, on a more intellectual level, however it is anger that makes something like Al Queda sense.

Even gangs have there own religion. Not one that usually is by the book but more of a man-made religion and one that changes to fit the needs of the gang. You could almost call it a government. The most dangerous part about Al Queda is the fact that there are more than one leader. Bin Laden is like a President yet has his men to guide him. Even in taking out Bin Laden that would never take out Al Queda. Another leader would rise up! As with the gangs in the US, you kill a leader another fills the shoes and most likely pre-planned as Governments are.

God knows how many movies, documentaries, ect ect I have read and seen on gangs. The simple fact comes to people that wish to belong to something. To have a meaning in life being they are just starving for the answer and once one gives that to them, then they are stuck in it. I have nothing but pitty and sorrow for Al Queda as well as any organization that finds meaning in killing another just for the sake of name. Just confused, sad, and angery people that find nothing better in life than to kill another for the sake of name.

Most of the people in this world are mear pawns in a chess game. We leave it up to the rooks, the knights, the kings and queens to win the game or lose the game. Pawns are always expendable!

Best to you
tta

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 07/14/03 - EU-US Summit on June 25, the EU-US agreed on a doctrine of interdiction

At the recent EU-US Summit on June 25, the EU-US agreed on a doctrine of interdiction and authoritative prohibition of weapons of mass destruction across the globe.

Interesting how things play out; I wonder what motivated that and what might have been different had that agreement been made prior to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq--- as well as how they will apply it to Iran, which seems to be the next target.

ttalady answered on 07/16/03:

Hey DC! Beyond Iran, what about N Korea? N Korea may just be pushing our buttons and might just be doing this whole nuclear warhead show for bribing purposes but either way their leader is a nut case! Quite comparible to that of Sadam.

Either way I find these "resolutions" or "doctrines" to be quite petty. Sadam had 17 and still a world organization could not see calling him on the issue. We would most likely laugh if we knew the half of the countries that have WMD's, let alone the US. It all comes down to who can play hide and seek the best with out getting caught!

Until the world is truly put into shock with WMD's, terrorist, ect nothing will change. To put it quite bluntly, if these morons do not figure out a way to protect every country putting aside their precious $$$'s, we are sure to come to terrorists ruling the world. Beyond that of Al Queda we are talking about the bull that N Korea is even pulling with the "He he he... we are making NUKES" deal. Is that not terrorising China and Japan? Let's not forget S Korea that is begging for assistance as well!

I want to see the agreement from these countries in the UN and EU that will sign the dotted line saying "I got your back". Call this marriage of countries if you must but "For better or worse, in sickness and in health, til death do we part, I GOT YOUR BACK". The British stayed with us the whole way however I think it is due to Mr. Wonderful Tony Blair!:) Canada joined the French in the backstabbing, and we are not talking of the people, we are talking about the power of countries and all about the $$$. Time for the courting part to end and lets see some REAL obligations country to country. Not just speaking of the US, speaking of all countries that say and decide to do or not do.

Our world needs some Marital Counseling, LMAO!

:) Jen tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 07/01/03 - God???

"...That which you hold to, upon which you stake your existence, that is truely your God" Luther
Comments?

ttalady answered on 07/01/03:

He/she/it is great. It is great. It is the one thing that makes life sense. The birds chirping, humming birds looking at you not even five inches away. It, God is it.

My God is of my life. The trees, oceans, dirt, everything around me. I take on that of the Jewish religion as well as Catholic. That of Budism and Muslim. I respect all, practice whole heartly none, yet I have the one thing all lack in religion and that is peace. I envision a new age area where we take all religions and find an answer.

If God is so easy to explain, then why do we wonder what God means? Maybe because all too many look beyond the obvious!

tta

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 06/29/03 - An immoral question?

Following on the question about The Ring of Gyges: Is the question, does morality pay off (or as Socrates put it, is justice profitable) an immoral question? Doesn't it suggest that the only reason for acting morally is that it pays off ("Honesty is the best policy.")? With the corollary that if it does not pay off, or, worse, if it is detrimental to the doer, then he is under no obligation to act morally? (By the way, this is one of the questions that professors of philosophy often ask in class.)

ttalady answered on 07/01/03:

Morals, are they not of one's teachings? Beyond that of society, parents, even life, morals are of a belief. Call morals that of a church, political views, of a vegetarian, of a meat eater. Morals are all explained in one mind.

Profesor, he he he... would it be moral for a hunter to not feel pain on a kill? Would it be moral for one that speaks of justice to have to let a murderer go?

To be moral is not fair. To be moral all too often is to look beyond that and see a side that all too often teaches you more about life. To be moral "Is the right thing to do" with back-up. Does it work, no, not all the time. Does it make others think, most definately YES! Does having morals say that "I live by my teachings, not by my mistakes".

Jen

Question/Answer
neo_the_one asked on 06/25/03 - What "to do my best" means?
---
I read a book and it advised "to do our best".

What "to do my best" means?
---
I read a book and it advised "to do our best". I am not native American, so I checked in the dictionary for explanation of this. I found this:

Best, n. Utmost; highest endeavor or state; most nearly perfect thing, or being, or action; as, to do one's best; to the best of our ability.

The supreme effort one can make: doing our best

I do not understand exactly what it means. Does it mean that me need to perfect ourselves, to make ourselves as perfect as we can, by always taking shower, having clean the best clothes, best car and live in the best region, have the best work, best salary etc. Or does it mean to make the best effort we can, like when we work we need to work as hard as we can, not to save energy? Does it mean that me need to make optimal work, not depending on time spent on the work? The book gave example about a buddhist who asked his teacher how long will it take to become enlightened, if he meditate 4 hours per fay, teahcer said 10 years, then when student asked what sbout 8 hours per day, teacher said 20 years, because if you can achieve enlightenemtn in 10 years by meditation 2 hours per day, then if you meditate more, you will destroy your happiness and well being, and this will farthen the process of enlightment. So I think the author meant that we need to try to get optimal results from our efforts, not work as long as we can till we feel exausted and unable to be productive next time. He also said that we need to do our best, no more and no less. I wonder how it is possible to do more then our best. If we did our best, then it is impossibly to do more. He also said that we need not overdo ourselves, because next time we will not have energy to do our best. So I thinkhe meant to do things optimally. But he also mentioned taking shower every morning as a ritual, so I think he meant also to be as best as we can be in temrn of perfection, maybe to have the best clothes, cars, jobs. I am not sure. Can you tell me what it means, to be my best? If it is to do things optimally, how should I know when not to overdo things. I can work till exhaustion, I can work till I feel uncomfortable, I can work till I dont like to do this - I do this now and I dont feel happy, I am loser, because I really like to do things. So I think he meant to overcome our lazyness so to speak, but how can we know when to stop?

ttalady answered on 06/27/03:

An analogy of "to do our best". I don't know if you have ever had pasta but assuming you have there is this wonderful pasta called Gnochi (pronounced N..aw-ki). If you have never had it you must try it! This pasta is very thick, filling, and I believe must expand in your belly once eaten.

The analogy: To do our best is like having not eaten for many hours. Planning on the wonderful meal of Gnochi's that will soon be in front of you ready for the attack. All prepared and ready to go, the devouring begins. Halfway through a mighty large bowl the belly is feeling quiet satisfied but wanting to finish the plate of pasta. You know you can do it and you know how you hate to not finish your food. You do know as well that you have had Gnochi's before and have over eaten such a pasta. You know that the aftermath of over eating the Gnochi's causes great stress on your stomach, basic comfort level, as well as the next days bowl movement! He he he.. But you just hate to not finish your food, you know you can finish it, but the aftermath, "Is it worth it"? At this exact point when you are thinking such, you have done your best!

Call it being in the middle! It is when you reach the point of being satisfied with the accomplishment of what was done, not quitting too soon and not over doing it to the point of stress. It is not to say to not strive for more but to find your groove in life. To reach a point in anything that you are over all happy with, comfortable with, yet does leave room on both ends. Leaving room to do a little less and a little more that way life is not so demanding.

Another way to look at this is if you have ever painted a room a color quite the contrast of what you are use to or had before. 1 Now you can just paint away and get the job done all the time hoping that you will like it. 2 You can put a sploch on the wall and decide if you like it dried. 3 You can paint a good section of the room stand back and see if it fits the room. As where the wisest decision would be 3! Meeting in the middle, not having decided too quickly on something yet not having decided ahead of time.

There is a difference in prefecting ones-self and being perfect. To be perfect that is to compare or be compared to ones just as you. Perfecting ones-self is to do to the best of ones ability. To only compare yourself to yourself in what you can and can not do. To balance out the two I believe would be the optimal way to go. To not judge yourself and perfect yourself only based on others yet to strive to from others. The key ingrediant being starting with yourself one on one and then going for some comparison if you wish.

If I use the word happiness it brings on much more meaning. If happiness ='s "to do my best" then you have your answer.


neo_the_one rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
neo_the_one asked on 06/24/03 - How to live?

How to live?
---
After living on this planet I realized that we as humans didn't develop what I would call an Art Of Living. We develop many sciences and improved our lives, but there is no the most important course in my opinion Art Of Living so to speak. I lived here for 20+ years and I realized that I made many mistakes. They were based on inability to prioritised my values right, to decide what is the most important for me, to deal with change of values right, understanding the world and what is the world about. My parents are not bright and didn't teach me a lot about it. My teachers in school and universities weren't ambitious about it as well. I was told by my parents that the sense of life in earning money and spending them, that I need to be study to get a white collar job, because people who are blue collar are inferior and nobody respects them. I need to marry because everyone does so. And stuff like this. After connecting to the internet and reading alot of info on life, self-improvement and stuff like this, I realised that there is more to it. There really should be books on courses called smth like "How to live", "Doing what matters", "Dealing with values shifts optimally". Can you tell me if somebody feels the same way and if yes, what can we do to improve the situtation? What self-help books are good to answer my question "How to live?", because most books I saw deal with only a small part of the proble, like dealing with depression etc. I want to have a book on how to live in general, how to choose goals right for me, how to deal with value shifts, how to live optimally etc.? Do you think it would be a good idea for me to try to write a book on this if there is nothing on this available? I have a lot of thoughts and ideas on it, because it is kinda my first priority in my life, you know, to figure out this stuff, because even I IQ=140, it didn't help me to achieve anything, I almost destroyed my life and professional career because of no knowledge on the above mentioned topic.

ttalady answered on 06/24/03:

Looking for a book called, "Perfect Life"? There is no such book let alone something known as such! It sounds to me you lack in one thing that is very important to living a great life, not perfect, it is called gut feeling. You could read 1,000 books on the subject of having the perfect marriage, having the perfect job, being a millionare, but in those 1,000 books one half will contradict the other half.

Life is not possible to put in a book, a story, even on tape. You are an individual, one person, that is not like anyone else. Think of all the child bearing books out there. How to feed a child, how to potty train, how to this and that but in truth not one book out there has the answers for have a child let alone raising one and to think of how many times children have been born and grown.

You sound like someone close to me that is quite the "book smart" person. One that wouldn't know the first thing of growing a plant however could name the plant just from a description of it. As where I could grow it but by God if it actually had a name. You are just seeking a middle point here. To understand what you know not only in "text" but more in living it! So there is your answer! You just need to live! As where I need to pick up a book you need to put one down! As where I experiance stuff I need to read about stuff. As where you are told stuff but have yet to experiance it!

Think about it. All you are asking is to be what you are not. Is that possible? Not totally, you are who you are, yet making a change in your personal goals will start something. You just need a different perspective of life not necessarily a book to tell you what it is. This "I almost destroyed my life and professional career because of no knowledge on the above mentioned topic" is life! Your whole question is life. Life is about wanting to know the answers to so.. much and so... much is answered just by living. Making mistakes, finding love, loosing love, birth, death, sky diving, climbing a hill, paying a bill, getting a check, helping another, being helped, ect ect. Life is in a second, a milli-second, a milli-milli- second.

I'm in the 20+ years myself, not that much +, He he he..., and the one thing I know for a fact is that we learn more from our mistakes than our triumphs! We are here to make mistakes and to figure out what the deal is! We are here not to have the perfect life but to seek the perfect life. To make being happy, loved, and most of all living to the best potential we can as one person. That is the goal to set. Not to over do what is true but to do what makes us that much closer to a perfect life.

So if you want the book on life, look at your story! Look at your past, your good and bad. Your mistakes and wins and go from that. Look at ones in your life, what they have been through and go through. Look all around you and you will see the book of life. It will change as you grow older but the answers to life is only contained in living. To try and fail is just as good as to try and suceed. You did it, you attempted life, you took a chance in life. From there is your answer. Your past is your reference book and if inclined, spiritual reference is always beneficial.

As I personally believe religions are that of guidelines to living. Not a know it all but gives you an outline to live. Only one makes life!

tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
neo_the_one rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 06/13/03 - moral justification for supporting dictatorships

I have heard the US has in the past funded, and or allowed American manufactures to sell weapons outright, or on credit, to brutal dictatorships.

Is that a fact? If it is, whats the moral justification for doing so?

Hannity on Fox spun the hell out of this question by a guest, and never answered it

ttalady answered on 06/13/03:

Is it a fact? I don't know, you don't know, very few know! Is it possible, yes, do you think they may have, yes, but do you hope not, yes! I consider this plain gossip. In gossip part may be true, most may be true, all could be way out of wack!

It is a fact that Tyson (boxer) raped that girl/many girls or a fact that he bit an ear off of an other guy while boxing? I hear he raped I saw he bit. Do I believe he raped, yes, do I know as a fact, no.

Hannity I love but he does spin BIG time. I guess what do you do when you can not answer the question? As where he asks others on his shows the same impossible questions and demands and answer. He is entertaining as well has views I do have as well.

Bill O'reilly on the other hand I find more honest. Sure he is more confusing being he really does not have a set place if you look on a political side however in that comes much that I love about him. I love to disagree about certain subjects and totally agree on others. I love his little jokes too, he gets me laughing...

Sean is totally right, so right sometimes he just keeps on spinning in that direction. Then he says "I just can not get to this person, he/she does not get it, I have to end it". In all a question you just can not answer but he does this to ones he wishes to debate.

For moral justification, in my eyes, absolutely 0 moral involved. Money, money, mon...ey! In politics the true moral of a government is about 5% compared to one person. Now granted in politics you are including thousands of people. That is why when you vote, specially for local government, you better put one in with morals. As where again the Clinton's just do not have any, they are about $$$ and that is it. "I did not in-hale, I did not have sexual relations with her, ect ect". There is something to be said about 1# moral, BE TRUTHFUL!

DC, stick with the thought process on Bill O'reilly. Honestly he can flip from time to time on what you "think" as his place in politics but in general he makes you think let alone stays in the middle on many subjects that need to be in the middle. I must say I do love going to the Hannity board to get at the way leftys there. They come in flocks I tell you, just to bash him! Nothing like a cat fight!! LOL

TT

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 06/13/03 - Morality's Concern

Is it possible for a moral action (whether moral or immoral) to concern _only_ the agent (the doer of the action) and nobody else. For instance, is it possible for a person who is stranded on a desert island, like Robinson Crusoe (or the true story of the man depicted by Tom Hanks in the movie "Castaway") to do something moral or immoral while on that island? Could, for instance, such a person act selfishly?

ttalady answered on 06/13/03:

Morale:

1 : moral; principles, teachings, or conduct

2 a: the mental and emotional condition (as of enthusiasm, confidence, or loyalty) of an individual or group with regard to the function or tasks at hand
b: a sense of common purpose with respect to a group : ESPRIT DE CORPS

3 : the level of individual psychological well-being based on such factors as a sense of purpose and confidence in the future

Selfish

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

In being moral or immoral to one, yes, very possible. One that has the will to survive may look past the moral in hunting if that is one's moral. To become "immoral" in ones mind for the only reason of surviving such. As for selfish, one can only be selfish in others eyes. If no-one is there to witness then there is no affect from the actions. Others being needed to make one selfish!

So if one survived as in stated above then others could give one the view of being selfish or immoral is having done beyond what they once believed and were. The fact stands that survival is beyond that everything. People have eaten other humans, that had passed on, for survival. Beyond their morals, beyond being selfish, it was for pure survival. Question is, in still living, do they regret or find it just surviving?




Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 06/12/03 - The Famous Looting

Some of you will remember the breathless condemnation of America because the Iraqis allegedly looted their own museum. One such was printed in Answerway prefaced by Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times.

And now, as a radio columnist likes to say, "is the rest of the story."

Iraqi Looting Story Goes
From Tragedy to Farce

In the Fray
By ROGER KIMBALL

It was horrible. An outrage. A tragedy. "Iraqi looting 'a loss to mankind'" said the BBC. "U.S. Army ignored alert on museum looting risk," ABC reported.

In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd skirled about coalition forces "guarding the Iraqi Oil Ministry building while hundreds of Iraqis ransacked and ran off with precious heirlooms and artifacts from a 7,000-year-old civilization." Oh dear. Everywhere one turned, the major media had the same story: Thousands upon thousands of rare, priceless, irreplaceable artifacts had been "taken or destroyed by looters." One-hundred thousand objects, according to some reports; 270,000, according to one story in the London Observer.

The Iraqis were looting themselves, but responsibility for the outrage was placed squarely at the feet of the Americans. On April 13, the Washington Post grimly informed readers that "it has become increasingly clear that the looting that was sparked by the fall of Saddam Hussein's government -- largely unchecked by U.S. forces -- has wreaked more damage on Iraq's civilian infrastructure and economy than three weeks of U.S. bombing." The Post went on to quote an Iraqi museum official who keened: "Our heritage is finished. Why did they do this? Why? Why?"

"Why" is exactly the question that needs to be asked. Not "Why did they do this?" but "Why is the press so gullible?" A few weeks ago the collective countenance of the fourth estate was, like Hamlet's Denmark, contracted in one brow of woe. Oh, those savage Americans: What they didn't bomb they stole, or allowed others to smash and steal.


From 270,000 missing down to 33: Artifacts at the Baghdad museum at the height of the media's "looting" frenzy.


But wait: That story plays brilliantly but, as the London Guardian reported June 10, "it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks." It wasn't the crazed Iraqi populace that denuded the museums but careful Iraqi curators, who spirited the swag away into vaults and secret storerooms before the war even began. Yes, there have been a few important losses. But there weren't 270,000 items missing, or (the most frequently reported number) 170,000. One museum official put the number at 47 items, but that was later revised down to 33. Meanwhile, the museum that was supposed to have been destroyed is scheduled to reopen next week. Stay tuned for further reductions.

About face, folks: The tape with the self-righteous denunciations has been taken off the reel while the new tape, full of self-righteous media navel-gazing, is cued up.

Instead of recriminations, we have a bumper crop of explanations and self-exculpations. Variations on "the fog of war" top the list: "So difficult here in the heat of battle being shot at we hardly know which side is which as we bravely try to get out the news to a panting public . . . ."

Well, there has certainly been plenty of fog. But the fog has primarily swirled around in great patches of anti-American sentiment. Fifteen minutes ago, when recriminations about an unprecedented historical loss were all the rage, it was all the fault of the Yanks and in particular the administration of George W. Bush. Quoth Prof. Zinab Bahrani from Columbia University: "Blame must be placed with the Bush administration for a catastrophic destruction of culture unparalleled in modern history."

Where do you suppose Prof. Bahrani is now? Busy writing an apology? Don't hold your breath. Columbia University is the institution that also gave us Nicholas de Genova, the prof who publicly said he hoped the Iraq war would result in "a million Mogadishus" -- i.e., a million American soldiers dead and dragged naked through the streets.

But don't single out Columbia. That's what establishment academic culture is like in America and Europe today. It's the received opinion -- not the only opinion, but the dominant one, the agenda-setter. Go to virtually any college or university in America or Western Europe: Anti-Americanism is a growth industry, so thriving that it is simply taken for granted: It's the state of nature.

And these days the assumptions that inform university attitudes also shape media culture. When NPR or the BBC or the New York Times goes to war, it goes with the lectures of people like Prof. Bahrani ringing in its ears and sentiments like those espoused by Prof. de Genova stirring its heart. As one disabused reporter from the Guardian put it: "you cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be believed."

The story of nonlooting of the Iraqi museums gave us a glimpse into that heart of darkness. That tragedy has collapsed into farce. Now playing: the saga of weapons of mass destruction. Plenty of those, I predict, will be found, and then we'll be treated to long analyses of exactly why the media got that wrong, too. Stay tuned.

Mr. Kimball is the managing editor of The New Criterion.

Updated June 12, 2003

ttalady answered on 06/13/03:

Jon,

I just do not bother questioning such. As my father, Vietnam Vet, told me, this war is going to spin and spin and spin. The good guys to the bad guys to the good guys to eventually just the plain fact it was a war. Vietnam had major support in the beginning, then with the media allowed to film what War truly was the support was pretty much null and void. There are agendas in media as well as politics. Notice that Mrs. Clinton has not spoken a word on this war or even the peace talks with Isreal and Palestine. She is staying in the middle in hopes for her re-election to the Senate as well as President in 2008. Again, agenda based!

What sells in the media? At a time of war it is the consipiracy theory. That the US's agenda is beyond what the world has been told. The truth is there is and will always be only a few that know all of the facts. As where I am truly confused on this Isreal and Palestinian deal. Do we take a side? Do we just let them fight it out? Who started it? It's like having two children!

The US is blamed for most of the world's troubles. Why, simple, we are the world power. Who gives as we give yet controls as we control?

The truth is there is no reason to be found in war. There is meaning yet to try and reason out all the why's is just a waste of time. Stick with what facts there are and note that one fact is that with the looting the fact is the US's intentions for this war was to take down the regime, not the people of Iraq. Even in all the propaganda of the looting vs oil fields biz the fact was taking down Saddam's regime. It happened so fast, so unexpected, that any reasonable person would see the men and woman were at "Okay, what do we do now"? LOL And none the less witnessed liberation and not seeing this as looting, taking what was rightfully their's. I would have felt the same if I was there and witnessed such, "Take it I would say".

The agenda was to make it look like Vietnam for the media, most of the media. They wanted "the story", lets get the consiricacy theory going. As where we now have the WMD's. My opinion, they are most likely gone. Saddam had four months to plan this, he knew it was coming one way or another. Now I ask who has them?

Your last question! I just don't spend $$ on the papers, I do not trust them! I flip flop from CNN (more democrat) to Fox News (more Republican). I like to hear both sides, do my own personal analysing, and usually meet in the middle on a story. Not much different than your regular day to day gossip that goes around. As I believe "Never judge until you hear both sides of the story".

TTA

mark5 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux asked on 06/11/03 - Do You Agree or Disagree..

Happiness is what comes out of you; your gift to the world. Not anything that the world gives to you.

Not a quote, just my opinion.

ttalady answered on 06/13/03:

I agree with you whole heartedly however adding that happiness is what you make of it! I am quite the happy person myself. Sure get in the dumps from time to time but in general I believe in some of the not so good days or hours if you just smile, so much is given to others that truly makes others feel better. So yes it is truly what you give but one must beable to give it first.

I once worked as a front desk clerk for a lodge in Vail Colorado. The man that owned and ran this I would consider one that has taught me so... much about customer service let alone just people. He said "Jen, if ever you are in a situation when the customer is not happy, just smile". "Let the person say as they must with a smile on your face". I had a couple of incidences shortly after his sharing this with me and would you know that the customer vented then apologized for having lost control. The smile almost triggering something during their venting that brought them to calm down and talk to me about the problem. Me thinking during the lashing, "This person is not going to ruin my day" with a smile of course!

It is a major problem with customer service these days being 95% of customer service these day is down right rude and grumpy people. Too many people have forgotten to smile as well as "The customer is always right". Now-a-days it is called "Customer-no-service".

So try it sometime. Walking down a street, passing another at the office, seeing someone that you can just tell is having a not so good day, GIVE THEM A :)! You would be so... suprised at the reaction let alone what it does for yourself.

So right on! However it is what ones makes of it. Make someone else's day, that is happiness!!:)

tta

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 06/09/03 - What came first?

Andiri raised a good point I was unable to respond to in a previous post, and it makes for a good question, I believe.

That raises an interesting question, for me; when in the course of evolution did man acquire the "urge to power" and "will to survive"? Yes, I agree, a combination of brains and cooperation has brought us to evolve as we have, but would we have evolved as we have with-out the "urge to power" and "will to survive"? Which came first, brains and cooperation , or the "urge to power" and "will to survive"

ttalady answered on 06/11/03:

I would have to argue that the "urge to power" and "will to survive" came well before brains and cooperation. My arguement is that the urge to power and will to survive are more or instinct than that of true thought. I watched this interesting story/documentary regarding the end of the ice age. How what we would call towns are what we would now compare to an Indian tribe. When outsiders were on foot due to starving if having not traveled the welcoming into a tribe was often difficult. For a husband and wife, often the wife was in a way used to be accepted into a tribe that could offer food and shelter. Once the man realized that the leaders of the group were in a sense not going to actually let them belong to the tribe they would often seek further for a more welcoming area or atleast ones that were more of a community than that of a tribe.

Instinct has much to do with the evolution of man kind. I can not count the times it has affect not only my life but anothers as well. One time in particular was swimming at a large lake that is known for rip tides. My two younger brothers and I, Grandma on the beach really not paying attention as she normally did. We were hanging out on the sand dunes but sure enough a drop off. My youngest brother was being drug out to la la land due to the rip tides and with no thought at all I went after him. Well sure thought in the sense of processing in my mind what I was seeing however not even a second went by with thinking out what I was doing. I had to get him before the lake took him. I did not even think that, he was in trouble and the process from seeing him to my reaction was pure instinct. We both could have drowned that day but someone was watching over us!

We survive and thrive on so much we are just born with. The rest comes with learning from what we already have. To fail is truly to accomplish. To be alone is to want others, visa versa. To have power is to have not had power. That something inside of us that is yet to be explained is what has brought on where we are now!

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux asked on 05/31/03 - On the Discovery Channel

last night: scientific explanations concluding that men and women are different! lol But, anyway, we all know that.

However, the scientists used modern science to test a few postulations using MRI's etc. machines that examine human brain activity. How estrogen and testosterone effect the human body. How a current African tribe organizes itself and has functiones as such for millennia.

Anyway, my philosophical question. Since females are roughly 1/2 of humanity, why should males be allowed to dominate culture going forward. I say that would be a negative way to go.

Comments...

ttalady answered on 06/04/03:

"why should males be allowed to dominate culture going forward." That is too funny!! We/females do not allow men to run the show, we control in different aspects. It is truly a 50/50 deal even if those stupid women's right groups think differently. Their biggest beef being that of fair pay! Even I laugh at that being the actual dependability of most (not all) women is quite lower than that of a man. The man is the hunter, the provider, the woman gathers and is the nurturer.

Population has nothing to do with how the female/male place in life is. I was given a body for a reason, hormones beyond that of man for a reason, and the best is the gift of giving life. There is a balance that belongs with male and female. If it were that women were to dominate culture, human reproduction would come to a major halt. That is like taking men and saying you are now a woman and women you are now men. It would not work and nothing worse than sparking that type of evolution!

Sad thing is we may be headed that way. With all this invetro with a single parent, sexual harassment cases, ect ect. Men are slowly loosing much from such little deals. I feel the basic problem with what is going on is that women are so... very emotional that they do not think. Not with the correct section of the brain anyway. The correction to this problem is for men to better understand this emotional thing and call it for what it is. As a woman I would love to see a female President some day however I would hate to wonder if she bombed Ireland because she was PMS-ing or menopausle. LMAO!!

tta

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux asked on 05/30/03 - From Last Night's Reading

Last night, I was reading a new book about a mix of things including anthropology, genetics, and major mental illness.

I was shocked when the author tied together genius with schizophenia and Bi Polar I genetically. While most people with major mental illness do not achieve excellence in society, the author gave a few examples of some of these men. The criteria included among other things, that the man exhibited verifiable symptoms of schizphrenia.

Included were the following people: Sir Isaac Newton, Kant, and Wittenberg(sp-sorry-the philosopher some mention on this board).

Does anyone have comments?

ttalady answered on 05/30/03:

Choux, have you ever seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind"? Excellent movie and based on a true story of:

"The Nobel Prize winner John Forbes Nash Jr. still teaches at Princeton, and walks to campus every day. That these commonplace statements nearly brought tears to my eyes suggests the power of "A Beautiful Mind," the story of a man who is one of the greatest mathematicians, and a victim of schizophrenia. Nash's discoveries in game theory have an impact on our lives every day. He also believed for a time that Russians were sending him coded messages on the front page of the New York Times."- Chicago Sun Times

This story almost makes me wonder if ones considered to have mental illnesses are not so much mentally ill however are just ones that see the world differently than us. I had a neighbor friend when I was a little bit thing that was autistic. Of course I found her odd however she also introduced me to new aspects of life. She would stand on the lawn just twirling her skip rope. I tried once to show her "how to use it" but her pleasure was in just watching it make circles. I decided to sit back and watch and even though I did not see what she did, she was almost creating a picture in air. A multi-colored skip rope that when you just twirl it it became a never ending rainbow almost. Unfortanelty her parents were very against a "normal" kid having contact with their "special needs" kid. They over protected her and would flip out giving her the difference, not her giving others the difference. I wonder to this day what became of her!

In all honesty humans give names to what they do not know. They study and study and wonder where it comes from but in general these people are the minority of the human minds. Some find that to be a negative side however I find this minority quite interesting and so... very much to learn from. It could be quite possible that mental illnesses are more of gifts than illnesses, that ones that think differently have a better understanding of things than the simple human brain. I would have never seen a rainbow in a jump rope if it was not for my autistic friend!

Some of these "mental illnesses" are dangerous however much of that is due to the lack of understanding of it. As where if you watch this movie, I highly suggest, it is not the person to be controlled to handle such but the person to control. Note the number of children said to be ADHD, all the drugs handed out to young minds over something that may just be a change of times. How few come to understand the child, they just put them on Ridelan!

tta

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 05/30/03 - The finite and the infinite

Many people say, usually when talking of God, that God is unknowable because the finite minds cannot understand the infinite.
But, at least in mathematics, that is untrue. Mathematicians talk quite cheerfully, and apparently quite knowledgeably about infinite sets of numbers, and even, after Georg Cantor, transfinite sets and numbers and even orders of infinity whereby one kind of infinity can be greater than another kind of infinity (for example the real numbers and the natural numbers) Now, mathematicians have finite minds, and yet they seem to be able to comprehend infinity pretty well. So the general principle that the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite must be wrong.
Comments?

ttalady answered on 05/30/03:

The way I think of this one is that God is a secert. One that is kept until time. Math is so different. It is like gossip that goes around. It started out in such simplicity and has grown throught many minds having ONE objective. In religion, a God, you are talking too many concepts/beliefs to even start focusing on God. Does not every religion have proof of their beliefs? Their God and their creation. As where there is the religion that is pretty much of math and science of creation. They could be right in what they think they have proven however it is so... old, how do you prove it?

Math is not a belief, it is something that our minds can process to work. Math does not just make sense, it works, it is seen, felt, and shows itself. God in many if not most minds just makes sense, not yet seen. Only the ones that believe find God works, is felt, and shows itself.

Jen

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 05/29/03 - Where Did God Come From

If for arguments sake there is a God, where did He come from and who made him and why?

ttalady answered on 05/30/03:

He? You mean She! Just kiddin, I don't know and honestly don't really care what possible sex God may be if even God has a sex. For some reason I doubt God is truly considered as male or female, why would an all mighty be either let alone is most likely both in one. Having made everything to have an opposite. I think the perfect human would be that of man and woman in one body. As where maybe God was bored with being one and wanted to see how two do.

Honestly people have there own beliefs of who God is, how God became (if he did), and why. I believe this is what makes God. Peoples beliefs! How different religions are, but just what if there is not a religion that is correct and one that is in-correct. Maybe the simple energy people give to pray in their way, to set morals, to live by a belief makes a God that is of all beliefs. A God is something all religions have in common. Some do not believe in Christ some have different names for their God, but in all every religion has something they pray to, believe in, and be of all set life on. As where I find all religions to be beautiful and so beneficial to life as long as it is not taken out of context for personal meaning.

The human mind is too simple to be able to understand let alone know such. Maybe at birth we were given the answer but with influences in life we loose the answer and at death find it again. That life is just the challenge to see if you are worth God's time. The answer is most likely in all the books and religions combined. As where the perfect human would be the one that is all people combined.

As for athiests, maybe they do not believe in God however I have never met a person yet that has not prayed, hoped, or asked for understanding in their life. Supporting my thought that God is a creation of us as well as all that lives.

Good luck finding your answer!

tta

chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux asked on 05/26/03 - Buddhist Wisdom

When you see a truck bearing down on you, jump out of the way, but spend time in reflection, too. Learning to deal with discomfort is the only way youll be redy to handle the truck you didn't see.

paraphrase B H Gunaratana

ttalady answered on 05/28/03:

To apologize for sharing? That posting is beautiful! Maybe not so much an oops but more of a calling!

I ask, what if that truck is your own. The one you trust and know? The one that pretty much planned it with out knowing?

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 05/22/03 - It's just the way it is.

In reading the following letter something stood out that raised my immediate attention.

Is there anything that is just the way it is, for example in the following quote; The different ways Black people speak are not taught. It's just the way it is.?

I feel this is possibly one of the worst editorials The State News has printed since I started reading it. I am referring to the editorial on Ebonics (SN 1/10). When I first read it, I was pissed. Then, my friend, Beth told me that The State News doesn't actually believe in the group editorials it prints. She said you just write heated, controversial articles to piss people like me off and have us all writing in and telling more people to read. That pissed me off even more. Truthfully I thought the whole ploy was clever, since it works and I'm writing this letter. But really, it's disgusting and insulting, and I'm incredibly offended.

How dare The State News imply that Black parents teach their children to say things such as "nut'in" and "dis," and that they "know no other language." Let me just inform all the white people who put this ideocracy in the paper. I am Black and neither my parents, nor any other Black parents, have ever instructed their children to speak improperly. This so-called Black English that everyone is talking about is non-existent. I don't speak another language from my white friends. When I say something to them, they understand me perfectly. The different ways Black people speak are not taught. It's just the way it is.

I'm sure history and linguistics majors know that when you have Southern people who don't speak "proper" English teaching Africans with entirely different language structures how to speak English, it is not going to be pretty. And since Blacks were not allowed an education, how were they supposed to speak properly?

Regardless of education, Black people have always spoken this way. It's not wrong, it's a part of our culture. Black children are not confused by standardized English. They accept it and use it in appropriate situations. Why should I speak the same way around my friends as I do with one of my professors? There is a time and place for everything. This is what Black children are taught by their parents.

The State News ought to document its editorials with facts before it goes rambling on. Maybe you should have talked to some Black parents or Black students and really asked about Black English. It should not be compared to Spanish. That's ridiculous. This whole editorial was ridiculous.

As I told my friend, Beth, I don't know why The State News wrote what it did, but I know that writing horrible falsehoods about Black culture will surely make me a less avid reader.


Ivy Janai Reeves

journalism freshman

ttalady answered on 05/23/03:

Well I think Ivy was way wrong in the statement of "It's just the way it is." Let alone his/her reasoning behind this idea/thought/feeling. Ivy clearly contradicts him/herself when he/her states how he/her speaks one way towards professors and another around his/her friends. That alone is a taught behavior in speach. I do find it odd how ebonics evolved, yes in the way early years with slaves and such, when blacks truly were not given education. I find ebonics now more of just their history, culture as well, but even on a higher level of the ones that wish to speak as such to be wanting the seperation of black to others. As where a black guy can say to another black guy "What's up my nigga", however if a white guy says that to a black guy, all in the same context, he is likely to get his butt kick in assumption of being racial. Or just the idea that a white man can not say such a word to a black person.

It is truly interesting to me that it seems tables are turning on the black/white issue. That "white" people, at least where I live, seem to be more accepting of blacks than they are of whites. That the slavery issue and mistreatment of blacks has now almost become flip flopped in whites being mistreated. In more ways than not it seems to me that they wish to keep such difference from anyone not of there color including ones of mixed cultures. Not all of course, just people like this Ivy. The white man has not perfected the acceptance of other races however has come very far. How odd is it that 40 years ago acceptance is the only thing they wanted yet now that it is so strong many choose to turn the other way and create that wall of being just that. I wonder now who could call who more prejudice?

I met this very intelligent man once at a local hick pub. Where I live there are very few African Americans, so few you could most likely count them. He came in pretty much just driving through on his Harley and knowing that there were a couple of rednecks in the bar I was almost worried about remarks that would be made. He said "Hello" to everyone and sure enough people just started talking to him. I was amazed specially when seeing the biggest of bigots enjoying conversation with him and came to realize that bigotry is really more of a show than the truth of a person. That people talk trash for attention and sometimes just for a good joke but in all nobody really gives two hoots. I then had the ba*** to ask him about his thoughts on the whole racial ideal people still have unfortanetly. He told me "That was years ago, if only people could move on with living and get past the past our world would be so much nicer". I was shocked not only at his reply but how sincere it was. After asking I was automatically thinking "open mouth, insert foot", being he was just hanging and the last thing I wanted to do was make him uncomfortable. I never did find out what career he held, where he lived, or even where he was coming from. It didn't seem to really matter, it just mattered that he was an African American guy that felt no different or acted different than the good old whities in the bar. Of course the suprise of the bigots as well. When he had his two drinks he walked out and not a peep of any sort of "black" joke was said. I did expect that for some reason.

There is no such thing as that is the way it just is. Everyone has choices in life to be something, speak a certain way, pretty much anything in life. No one is handed a card at birth that tells you how to live your life let alone speak. That is in learning from others. Heck, back in school we had these white duders that pretty much spoke ebonics. No they did not learn this from there parents being most of their parents were hicks and spoke "Ya'll", but somehow through friends, other people, they were taught this. Even TV I suppose.

So everything has meaning and reason behind it. If not then what would it be? Nothing, I suppose!

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 05/18/03 - should America be exporting Democracy

Awhile back jon spoke of a book by Zakaria: The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.

The book is timely in that today the question is popular; should America be exporting Democracy and if so to what extent; sort of like the question many years ago, during the Crusades, should Europe and England be exporting Christianity?

In the book he essentially seems to suggest that highly-trained, intellectual elites are best suited to ruling some cultures in lieu of democracy. However, I believe the argument that appointed organizations are better suited to rule is greatly flawed and dangerous. Are there any real organizations of elitist appointees-not democratically chosen-that have worked out well? Isnt it in fact fact, every single dictatorship and bureaucratic blocked ruling institution has either become horrifically evil or stagnant?

He also argues that "liberty depends less on the will of the majority than it does on the institutional safeguards for the rights of minorities."
Are all minority opinions valid inherently simply because they are in the minority? One hopes not. In this country there are many minority opinions, such as neo-nazi's, and other racist hate groups. Is he implying that because these views are not popular, and not held to the same standard as the majority view of freedom for all that liberty is threatened?

I agree that the majority can be tragically wrong, as he points out as one example of democracy gone badly: 1930's Germany. He is right in implying that the majority view is not always good, but what he in the end fails to do is to provide any solution.

ttalady answered on 05/18/03:

I still stick with the skip idea. Grant, as an American I can say that we did play music more than others. why do you think they hate us?

Have you ever maybe thought that as long as they can speak they are happy? That there are actions for ones actions yet to speak is something that lets A LOT OF STEAM off. In every culture people are "hushed". So far so good, doomed maybe in the speaking part but in all, we are not Isreal, Palastine, ect ect. The minority in USA will win the American Idol! His name is Ruben, he is all against stats in life. A large African Amercian Man from the city. But the boy/man can sing and he is just hugable. Minority is nothing in America these days. I am a minority, I am 28 white female and no college degree. I could not get help from the system if needed being I am that. I am a minority! I am held prejudice on my color, my age, my sex, ect ect.. Who's got time to worry about that?

YOU WANT IT YOU GET IT!

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 05/17/03 - The Mistake of the Matrix

Since so many seem to be getting their epistemology from Hollywood these days, perhaps it would be a good idea to see just what is wrong with the Matrix hypothesis. The Matrix presents a picture of a logical possiblity in that there seems to be nothing inconsistent in its main supposition. But the conclusion that some have drawn from that, namely that we cannot know that the world is "real" is fallacious. The fact that the Matrix hypothesis is a logical possiblity is no reason at all to think that it is a "real" possiblity; that it is in the least probable. The mistake is in confusing logical possibility with epistemic possibility. The fact that an hypothesis is consistent (like the Matrix hypothesis) is no reason in the world to think it is true, or that we do not know that it is false. For, to show that we do not know it is false, some reason has to be given to show that it is true (that,in other words, it is an epistemic and not just a logical possibility). But no such reason in given in the film, and, no wonder. There is no such reason. In other words, just because it is logically possible that the world is not real and is a kind of joint hallucination, is no reason at all to believe that we do not know that the world is real and not a joint hallucination.

ttalady answered on 05/18/03:

I personally find these movies enlightening. It is really in if you have belief or not in something other than something like we are all machines, planned as such, pretty much a movie. The Matrix shows what people are with out belief and what people are with belief. People that create such artistic ability question just as we do. Don't you think they could make a movie over the discussions here on the philosphy board, think about it.

The Matrix is that of Star Wars 20 years ago. We have pretty much passed by such. We have come to wonder about what is real and not real. Aliens, well if there are and were here, no big deal. To think of one as a computer program, well that is the new "scary" thing. Then again where do all the jobs go? Computers!

The movie itself is pretty much confusing yet wonderful. Watch "Somewhere in time"! An oldy, goodie, and makes you wonder!

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 05/14/03 - An Imposition.

This piece is so good that I could not resist imposing it.

Anti-Americans are really against liberal democracy
By Barbara Amiel

Margaret Drabble went haywire on these pages last week [opinion, 8 May]. Her state was, she told us, "almost uncontrollable". She deceived herself. It was out of control.

"It has possessed me like a disease," she continued. "It rises up in my throat like acid reflux" Drabble was referring to her loathing of America. Her list of American horrors, apart from the war in Iraq, was standard issue. "I detest," she wrote, "Disneyfication Coca-Cola burgers American infantilism... American imperialism..." and so on.

Countering the arguments Drabble advanced to justify her pathology is easy. The lady is a fine fiction writer, but when it comes to facts or ratiocination, she should be put in care. The sight of the faces painted on the noses of American planes bombing Iraq led her to the conclusion that "a nation that can paint those faces on death machines must be insane".

There are 26,000 entries alone on the first search engine I went to on the web for "nose art", which is what aviation art is called. It appears to have been first used by the Italians in 1913, but its golden age was the Second World War, when the Germans and British, as well as Americans, used it to keep up morale.

The key to understanding Drabble's lunatic rant is her reaction to what she says she saw on CNN celebrating the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war. She describes an old, shabbily dressed Vietnamese man bartering for dollars. The horror of this moment - an "elderly, impoverished" Vietnamese man wanting that terrible currency, American dollars, for heaven's sake - just put the lid on it for Drabble. She writes: "The Vietnamese had won the war, but had lost the peace."

Well no, Miss Drabble. The Vietnamese fought the war for communism and they won communism. That, indeed, is why the old man is impoverished, shabbily dressed and bartering for dollars. In your deliberate obtuseness, you become blind to the most self-evident conclusions and an apologist for the appalling regimes that are so far removed from your ostensible values.

Forgetting the danger Saddam posed to those outside his borders, we have now seen that removing him from power cost fewer Iraqi lives than just one of his killing sprees. Would you have condemned the Iraqi people to another 12 years of Saddam's murderous nightmare?

Are you too sophisticated for Coca-Cola and Disneyfication but not for Saddam's garish palaces and his giant posters on every street corner? After Stalin, Hitler and Mao, this horrifying man probably captures fourth place in the great mass murderers' list, or fifth after Pol Pot.

One is tempted to call this visceral anti-Americanism "the Drabble syndrome", but she is neither the first nor the most prominent sufferer. You could as easily call it the Pinter syndrome and it certainly is the BBC syndrome.

One face of it appeared in the form of Dame Margaret Anstee, the first female UN Under-Secretary General, interviewed last week on BBC World's Hard Talk.

For all anti-Americans, the primary danger is American "unilateralism". No one ever explains why - this is simply a given. Dame Margaret believes that after the Cold War it has become important to have some "balancing factors" in this "unipolar world" by creating some "closer combination between the north and south".

If American unipolarity is dangerous and we need to replace the nuclear-equipped Soviet balance of power with a north-south combination, Dame Margaret and her UN might equip their Durban Conference participants with some nuclear weapons. North Korea's Chairman Kim Jong-Il should do the trick. "I don't think it's in the interests of anybody," explains Dame Margaret, "including the United States, to have a situation in which the world as a whole is policed and run by the United States."

These are the arguments of idiots or scoundrels. The last thing America wants is to be alone in the world trying to uphold the values of liberal democracy. The problem is that it does find itself alone, forced into unilateralism by Dame Margaret's UN, which would not enforce any of its 17 resolutions on Iraq. But for her and her ilk, everything comes back to the fault of the US.

Castro's executions get a frown from her, but "as far as Cuba's Castro is concerned, his stay in power has been very much facilitated by certain policies... from outside". The last refuge of the totally blinkered Left-liberal is, when faced with the undeniable evidence of a monstrous regime, to say it is all the fault of America.

If you watch the BBC for any 24 hours, you see institutionalised anti-Americanism. When Mayor Ken Livingstone told schoolchildren that President George Bush was "everything repellant in politics venal... corrupt" [report, 10 May], the BBC's commentary was concerned only with how badly this would affect tourism in London - as if there was nothing substantially wrong in the remarks themselves.

When BBC World News presenter Deborah Mackenzie faced American Enterprise Institute scholar Mark Falcoff, she found him insufficiently contrite about American unilateralism. "Doesn't world peace depend on international organisations?" she demanded, as if he had just pronounced two plus two equal to five. When Falcoff appeared unmoved, she turned very grumpy. "So, are you happy for the US to play judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner?" she countered, at last abandoning any pretence to objectivity.

The BBC has no idea that it has a bias. But in its anti-Americanism, as in its stand on a number of other issues (ranging from abortion to membership in Europe or the moral equivalence between the actions of suicide bombers and those of the Israeli army), there is nothing in its mind to be decided. If a dissenting view has to be presented, it will always be put in a defensive position.

The canard of choice among those voicing anti-American views is to claim to distinguish between Americans and the administration of George Bush, suggesting the latter is unrepresentative of the people. Every BBC interviewer relies on this, as did Drabble, Astee and Livingstone. But Mr Bush enjoys a popularity rating of more than 65 per cent among his countrymen.

The dislike of the United States has several components, including jealousy of its superpower success, dismay over America's eclipse of European economic and political influence, and unhappiness with a certain vulgarity in American culture. But the primary antagonism springs from the fact that British and European institutions - including the BBC and most of the media - are now firmly in the hands of the statist Left, with its slavish adherence to all the shibboleths of Left-liberalism.

American institutions, under any administration, enthusiastically celebrate the values of free enterprise and individual freedoms relative to the British and European Left. What is called anti-Americanism is really anti-liberal democracy.

Which brings us back to Drabble. "There is another America," she concludes. "Long live the other America and may this one pass away soon." It's pretty much how I feel about the grip the Left has on Britain, the BBC, the EU and the UN - except I don't delude myself that their leaders are anything but representative of the majorities who have brought them to power.

ttalady answered on 05/15/03:

I don't trust the media, commentators, ect. Listen to all and figure it out for myself, they all have truth, fact, and opinion in all. Liberal is good to a point, I stick by conservative myself as was the point I guess?

Anti-American is ANYONE that will not stand by our flag. Our constitution has been so manipulated that I honestly do not know if it makes any sense. Anti-Americans are ones not to stand by reason over feeling. Hey, I never liked Clinton however as a President he was good. Morally Bush does better. Will I ever vote for Hillary, NO WAY! She's too expensive and not worth the $$ in my eyes. As Bill most likely saw!

Liberals to me are out of wak! They want control of my hard earned $$'s to hand out to every person living in the US claiming "can not work". There is never a can not, a will not, but never can not! I control my life, my health, my way. Liberals want that from us, no way!! No dictatorship here saying when or when I can not go to a doctor. I work for that!! Others DECIDE not to work for such therefore they get my tax money to get the deal they get.

I will just sit on my porch, watch the sun set and maybe rise if up early enough. Let the politicians figure it out with me on one side and my closest buddy on the other. One that is Anti-American has a problem flying the flag!! That is our past, present, and future!

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 05/14/03 - abortionist claim?

thought is consciousness, ---- isnt that an abortionist claim?

Well--- is thought consciousness?

ttalady answered on 05/15/03:

Well you pretty much know my view point on this one! In either sence of the one to abort or one aborting there is lack of much belief of life, my opinion. Granted that pretty much anyway I can look at this there is in a way hipocracy.

I would say the question is, to one, what is good and what is bad? Even a parasite is alive whether inside something or not. Does it have feelings, well heck I don't know, you ask it! LOL.

To go on a weird aspect here, I have had veal before. Twice I think in my life. Never knew what it really was and I really don't think I could have it again. My fiance did some farm work years ago and told me things maybe I should not have heard, but greatful for what he told me. In that the facts of something out way an arguement of like to think/believe.

The facts that I know from personal ones that have had abortions is that "It is not worth it". Unfornately these are friends of mine that did so, as heck it is normal in our culture. In all cases having gone through years of pain from it. This is not the pain of the having a fetus/baby torn out of one, the pain that the soul carries from having a life ripped out of one. In all cases the girls too young and way to immature to understand what life really is. Let alone respect it.

Fact again. I saw first hand the aftermath of this killing life. My best friend. In my belief, when she found out she was with child, I called one of those "We'll help you deals". With no intent of counseling her into keeping the child or giving it up for adoption, however was the one number I seemed to find at the time. We were 17 and 18. I wondered for a while why the lady kept on having me answer questions for her, the lady not speaking to the one with child, and now know that she must have felt I would be the one to save the child. Being her best friend and her in total confusion. I failed and lost myself in her confusion. Honestly took in the so-called "best interest" of her and what she felt was over my own belief. She was a mear month and a half but the signs that were already there, her eating things she had not eaten in 3 years, the glow she had, the honest energy she did show even in feeling so upset.

In all honesty I did my best to block out what she was doing. As her boyfriend did, she never did. The night prior her bf and I had some beers at the hotel we had to stay in for her "appointment" the next day. She would not drink, it was never a celebration let alone another day. For me it was just me being strong in something I had no idea about. The aftermath was that of years of regret on my part, on his part, and specially on her part. That day it seemed to me that much was just gone from her.

To add it up! If life is just being conscious, then what is the point of life? If we just breath, wake up everyday doing the same thing, what is life then? Life is more than air, water, any need for us to run physically. A woman's body can carry a new life and at times can not. To think of a "fetus", doctors name, child in the belly as anything but a miracle is just plain selfish of ones own self worth. Everything comes from starting something. All in a seed, a process, just nature. Why is it so many belief that if something does not have air, a brain, a body such as man that it has no soul and no life? Think of a fossil and the life it tells for us.

Well DC, you know my POV on this. I find it sad that others can find anything close to an arguement on this subject. Humans should understand by now the importance of life, if not, well belief will lead them in their direction.

tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 05/09/03 - "With certainty comes unclouded efficacy."-------

You believe it, so why should you feel it necessary to prove it, if you truly live your belief and dont act against that belief, how could anything possibly any better? To do otherwise is to be pretentious.

"With certainty comes unclouded efficacy."------- Dark'Crow

True or false?

ttalady answered on 05/10/03:

DC, how do you prove a belief? Can you really? I don't think so, you can never.

As where who can prove a God, that life was created from something miraculious, ect ect. That is just belief and one can just give up on such or go with it and benefit from it.

A new belief I have found and spreading it is that credit is bad. Way bad. And truly beyond the bill you get. Why does one spend long and timely hours at a job just to pay off a bill. Why does one feel the need to spend and spend and spend to find themselves in misery? As in the credit cards, buying more than affordable, ect ect. Because at the time it feels good.

Beliefs are hard to prove and none the less don't have to be proven. Think about this one. How many people say "I believe the more money I spend will make me well off". "That having an abortion will better my life". "That drinking and driving gets me closer to home".

These are ones that just do not care. About themselves, others, and future. I was there and only 1 out of the three. It took me one scarrying myself to understand what the deal is and that belief is not to be challenged let alone a joke in life. You hold this strong and to your heart for the sake of your life and all that you love.

There are just some times, even in my learning years, that you just do. It is my belief that ones should be married before having a child. Well my bf is having a baby in about a month and with my beliefs, let alone them being together for 10 years, I had issues going to the baby shower with out them being married. Reason being the baby. Happy as pie they are having one however in belief and responsibility it is right to be married. I did go for her and being she knows my point of view on this. But in my beliefs I did wrong!

Ok, enough said. As always love your questions. AKA getting other minds involved!!

Jen

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Jon1667 rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
stiamo_bene_insieme asked on 05/10/03 - what was the illusion and reality in the movies the matrix and waking life(2001)

what was the illusion and reality in the movies the matrix and waking life(2001)

ttalady answered on 05/10/03:

The illusion is figuring out that we are pre-programmed for life, the reality is that we "might" be pre-programmed for life.

The illusion was more of finding life fake and just a story to seem you were living it. Reality is that you have a choice in living life or finding it fake.

A very confusing movie I must say. There is no real understanding of what is going on other than others are in control of others. Beyond that of politics I must add. You must look further into the political aspect of the writer, director, ect to understand the movie. It clearly states what may come in a hundred years based on their view of things.

Pretty intersting!

tta

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 05/04/03 - Girls, women, etc.... What does the old XX offer or take in philosophy?

I'm not being masogonistic, I am just asking.

Especially since Jon teaches and most of you have gone to school.

In my philo- classes it was 80%-90% YX (male) has that been true for you?

How many female philosophers have there been compared to male and is there a commonality in the philosophical ideas at all?

Please don't go into "why" in this message. We can do that next I guess.

ttalady answered on 05/08/03:

Emotions, tis a woman's downfall however tis a mans helper in life. I wish I were man! Non of this emotional stuff but if not my man would not be equal in life. As for, ok, men are the thinkers! Good when they keep it above their waste! LOL!

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 05/05/03 - Are you a philosopher? answer there few questions

1. Define reality. Give two (2) examples.
2. Using only basic first order logic, develop a rational foundation from which to prove the truth of radical relativism.
3. Analyze the fundamental nature of being. Introduce new distinctions and obfuscatory neologisms.
4. Escape the hermeneutic circle with only fishing line and a Swiss Army knife.
5. Demonstrate the validity of the fallacy of composition.
6. Evaluate the following argument: "If conventionalism is true, it must be true by convention. We do not believe in conventionalism. Therefore, we should change our beliefs because conventionalism is self-evident."
7. Translate Heidegger's Being and Time into Latin and Aramaic. Provide an analysis of the nature of translation which explains why neither translation makes sense.
8. Assume solipsism to be correct. Explain why more people aren't solipsists.
9. Explain the Cartesian distinction between res cogitans and res extensa without going into any intentional states, e.g. thinking of Descartes.
10. List three beliefs held by eliminative materialists.

ttalady answered on 05/08/03:

I'll just answer #1. Hey, give me some credit! LOL

1. Reality is the worst nightmare yet best trip in life. When you take one moment to focus on that one moment and try to see what the meaning is behind it. I stood in my living room one night listening to the soundtrack from the movie "Somewhere in Time", oldie but goodie. I just looked at all the family pictures, looked at the moon in full rise, and noticed that what is real is all in one second. No one could understand the moment I had, no one could have the reality that moment gave me. Reality happens in a second then you learn or not. All in focusing!

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux asked on 05/06/03 - Discussions of American Foreign Policy

When I listen to discussions about America's foreign policy goals espceially the reason(s) for the Iraqi War, I get perplexed. For example, Bill Maher makes the point that the Bush Administration has changed the reason for the war twice...and Mayer says that the war was not necessary, that Saddam was only "the Mayor of Baghdad". I see that the reason he changed the reasons is that he can't state the real basic reason. America is not going to be subservient to Arab terrorists and their sympathizers.

If a person gets into a discussion with someone and states that the reason for the war was that America wants to have the upper hand in the world to Arab bombers and their sympathizers, is the response that America is Imperialistic?

If so, I don't see that controlling Arab violence and trying to positively effect the Middle East means that America is making an Empire. I disagree completely.

So, what is a response to them?

ttalady answered on 05/08/03:

First of all you have to go beyond the "news commentators" and "experts" in this whole deal. The President is well informed on how to approach the day to day deal. Facts are he said from day one, shortly after 9/11, that this would be a long war. Going into Afganistan his primary subjects were the Taliban and Osama. Osama yet too have. Phase two is WMD's with a country that has not complied in 12 years to resolutions of the first dealing. An obvious threat to America as well as what they know. We don't have to know and I really wish not to know. The WMD's, well lets just predict that they are in other hands now. That with the bull of the UN, we are now in more danger. Where are they?

Bush has never changed his reasoning of the Iraq war. He has made implications that one would find as a "new reason" however I trust his reason is only for our safety. The only hope we have for controlling the backstabbing going on with our France, Germany, ect, ect is to put the finacial pressure on them now. For why, because opposing political parties are siding very much with ones that did not make this a simple deal.

Listen to the Presidents words! Sure he is in a way formed with such but as well the man has such meaning behind him. He is true to his word, he is true to his service men and women, and he will be true to us. To think others think he has some sort of ego. When this war was in professional hands all the way. We can not screw our soldiers in the "economy". Watch, the American public will do this! Pull men out of Iraq, not all, but many. Then a free for all on targeting out men and women there. All for the other side of politics busting you know what "economy". "How much is Bush spending on this war". Oh my

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 05/06/03 - Is there a God?

What would happen if we could prove beyond doubt that there is no god? How would it affect us and the way we live?

ttalady answered on 05/08/03:

Impossible! It is totally impossible to prove there is not a God. Even if you came back from the dead and said so. This is of course for people like me that believe in God/a God/many Gods. Something beyond death, beyond life, beyond knowing.

It is just impossible to prove to the world there is not God. That in general religions are false in all senses. That we are mear machines working until we quit?

What it would do, it would do nothing, it is impossible! Belief is too strong in life for a "possible" fact to change anything. You can not prove something you can not prove!



chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux asked on 05/08/03 - Countries That Oppose American Policies

I have a negative opinion of the countries who have decided to try to form an alliance of sorts against American(hyperpower) Policies because I have seen not a single POSITIVE policy put forth. All the talk has been against against against. Are there any positive policies or agendas? (I'm referring to France, Germany, Russia, and the Middle East)

ttalady answered on 05/08/03:

America is pretty darn greedy, don't you think? We just want power, money, and respect. But, and big but, which takes it all away, is that we are darn well giving! Beyond $, beyond power, and beyond respect. How is it that our Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marines are that of the largest power in the world? All based upon belief of the nation. Not the politician in power!

I can only think that these nations are either jealous beyond a healthy matter or know something we do not. As for who the enemy (s) truly are. What honestly scares me is that there are so many people in America that are non-American. Nothing to do with the peace mongers, war mongers, ect ect. The politicians are taking the anti-American pose. The ex-President Clinton playing golf with the French Canadian leader for Canada. Fine, when times are good and all but not when American children are going to Montreal to play a simple game of ice hockey and some/many Canadians are throwing things at their bus. Booing the American anthem at their game, ect ect. Clinton was not much of a husband, would not suprise me that he really sucked at a father!

This is beyond American politics. This is so world politics and ever darn one of them will do right by themselves.

What kills me the most is that in Iran, they have the American flag painted on the side walk so children learn to walk on it when going to school. That is their decision. In America, some schools and colleges will not fly the American flag for sake of "hurting peoples feelings". Since when have we become a nation of all nations? Since when was it not one coming from far lands to see the statue of liberty, the American flag, the American dollar and not smile? What have our politicians become to allow such disgrace to the land that millions of people have died for? And beyond that, since when do we give others freedoms only to be sucker punched!

Nothing will ever be positive when it comes to foreign relations. America is water and the rest oil. We never mix and best of all, we do not need oil to survive! We have one thing beyond that of any country and that is pride!

Jen

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/28/03 - Americas position in regards to the UN

Im really trying to figure out just what Americas position is, in regards to the UN. Didnt America hold Iraq to the authority put forth by the UN, and then itself, deny the authority applied to America?

It seems we either need to give world authority to the UN, or deny it has any authority at all.

ttalady answered on 04/29/03:

If ever America gave the UN the authority for decisions on this country, I would leave. Australia bound and even missing the fact of owning a gun. Can not go to Canada for US protects Canada. Screwed in all.

All of that is secrets! I am the proud American that has closed ears at times. I need not know everything. Do you? I trust our leader and know for a fact that in the past 12 years our issues were handed to us yet not taken! All from one guy never taking care of business but his own!

Just think 12 years of bull. I heard Hillary a couple of days ago, oh boy! She is in need! And, just one more, Bush was not secret, he was open and ready for the punches. Clinton hid in his "dealings" I never heard of them did you?

tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux asked on 04/29/03 - Talk Show Arguments

I guess it is under the field of Philosophy, logic and critical thinking, to evaluate what is said by "Conservatives and Liberals" on talk shows.

How to think about this. Say on The O'Riley Factor, Bill O'Riley has basic ethical values. He argues his points from his values and ethics.

So, how to reconcile this with critical thinking. For example, last night, he argued that a law requiring employers to consider hiring transgender individuals would be bad for business. He made a total mess of his argument, IMO. In fact, the other participants convinced me of their position.

NOw, I know that Bill is a blowhard, but with a different example, how do individuals argue from a "moral" standpoint?

ttalady answered on 04/29/03:

You so... misunderstand what Mr. O'Rilley was fighting for. He was fighting for freedom of choice in business. If some duder comes in totally looking like a male, visa versa, selling bibal material of any sort, or even a male duder selling clothing at a "Men's store", a female worker working at a "Female store" dresses as a guy. It would ruin business. Ok, depending on where you live, but in general the general public want to relax and not wonder when shopping! He did not speak of travel agents, bar tenders, even a judge on a court. He spoke of the bias that would go on that if some he/she, she/he walks in to apply for a job and even beyond that the person can scream "Discrimation". Discrimination of what?

YOU CAN NOT, AND WILL NOT be able to take matters like these into a total YOU MUST DO! This is not even close to prejudice with African-Americans. This is based on a choice not a God given gift. This is a male or female taking the gift they have and wanting to be something else. I am confused?

This whole ordeal is nothing but more court cases over pettiness. Over wondering why so many criminals, why so many rape cases, pedophiles, in all peoples that have no idea of being "normal" in life. Why so many that do not want to be what they were born as? Why is because too many are ready for the million dollars over helping others. Oh our lawyers! They just love the discrimination cases, the oops I fell and hurt my hip cases, the pretty pathetic sexual harrassment cases! People have to learn to get a life first and wonder why they are where they are!

So freedom of life for the cross dressers, screw the unborn children? Knowing they can live at 5 months as a "fetus" out of the womb!
:)Chou, think about it!

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/25/03 - Liberal and Conservative philosophy

Someone please tell me, what is the difference between Liberal and Conservative philosophy. I mean I naturally have some idea, but it seems no one is altogether one or the other, or are they?

ttalady answered on 04/25/03:

Ahh but political is different. They there is an objective of power to be the country! Religion is a choice, philosophy is a choice, politics is the choice of many and sure your vote counts but 1 of what, billions.

Politics is way more complicated than life, religion, and philosophy. Because, and I know you should never start a sentence with that, but life, religion, and philosophy one can control in one. Politics you have your percentage of control. As for I am so.... against abortion. 100%. Even in rape cases, I find that life is life, if you wish to make this life your goal forever then awesome, if you can not, there are too many people out there wanting to be a Mom and Dad. Too many to kill what dreams life is about! How many people do you know that have apopted? I know no one. I know 10 girls that aborted, at least 5 couples that wish for children, and 2 couples that messed with nature and now have more than they can handle!

I was present at one ordeal. I begged her not to do so but it was her decision, as I thought at 18. The reprocussion of killing that child was beyond what I even imagined. It seemed she just wanted it out and that she was just sick. Now that I think about it and know that in what was done was wrong, I too blame myself. I do and yet I also have also be forgiven as she has. I have repented as she has.

Conservative to me is that of direction. To not forgetting the past, to not living in the past, yet learning from the past. Liberals in my mind want to forget all and just change life. I can accept gay people but in my eyes if you can not make a baby on your own, it is not meant to be. Such as I do not believe in invitro, cloning, ect. This is mother nature and the more you mess with her, the more harm we shall receive. Life does have set rules! All too often doctors set our rules. Don't eat this, don't do that, do not do anything but see me when sick. How depressing that is!

In general are not most liberals, vegetarians, pro-choice (kill babies), and peace mongers(yet throw punches and lay down infront of a hospital when people are dying on the streets). Liberals find meaning in their own meaning. Don't kill a cow but kill a child, don't kill an enemy to our Country yet kill our own soldiers, don't help the ones that work for it, help the ones we pay for! To call Iraq "liberated" kills me in that liberals will find that on their side. How many in Iraq, do you think, abort a child? On "choice" of course. A Democracy, see even that is so close to Democrat. Argh! As a conservative the one major thing that needs to be fixed is our environment. Period!

Other than that, I stand by my morals in right and wrong, in truth, and justice. In true understanding of what goes around comes around. We have a fine leader and in that a man with good intentions for protecting the only thing that we will truly have over any other, freedom!

Respectfully,
Jen

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
JeffreyBryson asked on 04/24/03 - For your reading


I just read this article which once again brought home to me the brutality that was Sadam's.

Of course, renovating a government is very difficult work, but, really now, can there be any doubt that Iraq is suddenly in a better state to be so extricated from such future acts and that the Coalition (regardless of its place of priority) has given a huge gift to the Iraqis?









The Abu Earless Brigade
Saddam Husseins ear-amputation campaign went on for three days, May 17-19, 1994, in every city in Iraq. Some of the estimated 3,500 men who lost their ears are now telling their stories

By Rod Nordland
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


April 23 Theyre among the saddest of the sad, in a land full of sadness. They push forward from the crowd of beggars and supplicants that gathers wherever they find foreigners, whether soldiers or journalists or aid workers.

MOST, LIKE AHMED Hussein, have no words in English, but they dont need them. Outside the HQ of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit in An Nasiriya yesterday, Hussein only had to turn his head to show his profile, and utter a single word, Saddam, as he pointed to the stump where his right ear used to be. He wasnt begging for money, though he had none, or asking for a bottle of water or a telephone call abroad, like so many others in a place where the water doesnt run and the phones dont work. He just wanted to tell his story.
The story of Iraqi men with amputated ears is becoming a depressingly familiar one as people grow more convinced that Saddam Hussein and the Baathists will never come back. Finally, they can talk freely. This will probably not be the greatest atrocity committed by Saddams regime, but with its clinical brutality and its echoes of Nazi medical mutilations, it stands out.






Hussein was among those arrested in a crackdown on Iraqi Army deserters in 1994; he had left his unit because, he said, I didnt want to invade Kuwait again. The same day that he was arrested, he was taken to an operating room in Saddam General Hospital in An Nasiriya and blindfolded. A surgeon gave him a local anesthetic, but it was still severely painful when he severed the ear nearly to the bone with a long-bladed scalpel. I wanted to kill myself right away, he said. How can a man live without his ear?
Afterward, sentenced to 25 years, he was thrown into prison and tortured on a daily basis in an effort to get him to confess that he was plotting against the regimewhich would have meant a death sentence. He has deep knife gashes and bones that were broken and healed improperly in his arms and legs. A general amnesty four years later brought little respite; his ear stump was his red letter D for deserter, and it made him unemployable. I could not get married while my ear is off, he said. No woman would want me.
The ear amputation campaign went on for three days, May 17-19, 1994, in every city in Iraq. It was unknown to the outside world, as was so much that went on inside Saddams Iraq. No one knows how many men lost their ears, but it must number in the thousands. One victim said his guards told him the total nationwide was 3,500. In Basra alone, 750 Iraqi soldiers were imprisoned at a police lockup called Seryat Dhowaria al Shirta, near the marketplace in downtown Basra. They were all taken in groups of 10 to each of the citys three major hospitals, where rotations of surgeons were set up to perform the amputations over that three-day period. All surgeons were obliged to participate; a few managed to flee the country, and one, at the Al Joumariyah Hospital, refused to pick up his scalpel and was executed on the spot, according to doctors there. Theres little doubt that the order came down from the top; in Basra, victims said that they saw both Abdul Bakr Saddoun and Noori Saddoun, the two top Baath Party officials in the city, at one of the hospitals just before their amputations. Why are you deserters? Noori Saddoun allegedly said to Anwar Razak. I said, Im not, and he hit me himself.
Anwar was one of many victims who were caught up in the sweep, even though they werent deserters. He had been granted leave by his officer for the weekend, but didnt have his papers with him when he was stopped at a party checkpoint near his home and recognized as a soldier. They refused to check with his unit, probably since party cadres who caught deserters were paid a handsome bounty. In some cases, the bounties paid were as high as 200,000 dinars, according to Baath Party documents: roughly 18 months average salary. After the beating from Saddoun, Anwar was taken to an operating room where he managed to lift his blindfold enough to see and recognize the surgeon. But he wont name him. He was apologizing and said they forced him to do that, he said. It wasnt his fault. They were not given painkillers, only tied down to their gurneys. We were all crying, all of us, he said. Anwar lost both his ears; other victims only one. Why isnt clear.
Anwar Razak, like Ahmed Hussein and the other victims, was imprisoned afterward and tortured routinely. The guards taunted them. They called us Abu Thanat Mabtura, he said. Its Arabic for Abu Earless, or Father Earless. Released after two years, his fianc broke up with him rather than marry a disfigured man with no job prospects. None of the earless men were able to find work, since the party controlled employment in most sectors of the economy. All of the earless men know numerous others who suffered the same fate. I know at least 50 just here, said Hussein of Nasiriya, a small city.



Anwars cousin, Nabil Abdul Razak, similarly was picked up in Basra for being away from his unit, though he says he had no intention of deserting. He was just AWOL for a couple days to finish his accounting exams. He was lucky, though. An accountant in a Pepsi firm owned by one of Basras richest men, Ghareb Kubba, Nabil was also an old friend of Kubbas. Kubba managed to pay a million dinars in bribes to soften Nabils mutilation. Nabil was allowed to give blood first, in case he needed to replace what he lost in surgery. Hed get painkillers. And most importantly, the doctor would only slice half his right ear off. He kissed me and said he was really sorry but he had to do this. Other victims werent so lucky. Many of us bled to death in prison afterward, says Anwar Razak. Some were even branded with a hot poker at the hospital, with the Arabic word for coward scorched across their foreheads.
Its striking that none of the victims seem to blame the doctors who had to perform the operations. Many of the surgeons still seem racked with guilt and shame over it, and few will talk openly about it. They wanted to make us complicit, said a surgeon at the Basra Teaching Hospital, who maintains he managed to evade the duty by calling in sick when his rotation came up. And they wanted everybody to know about it. Afterward, doctors didnt dare try to help the disfigured men. It was such a dirty business, said Dr. Abdul Khalik Zater Benyan, a cardiothoracic surgeon at the teaching hospital. No one would dare do plastic surgery.
Plastic surgery is what these men all want most now. Many of them suffer hearing loss, and infections from poor aftercare in prison often caused inner ear problems, as well. Anwar Razak says hes had tinnitus ever since the amputation. Rebuilding the outer ear, using skin and cartilage from elsewhere on the patients body, is well within reach with modern plastic surgery. Were just hoping that some NGO from America will come and give us our ears back, says Nabil Razak. For men who have suffered so much, its a modest request.

ttalady answered on 04/25/03:

K, so why did we go? That I have yet to figure out yet believe that Iraq's regime was a MAJOR danger! UN, what a joke. Since when have they done anything for the world? Oh yeah that food aid, that profits go into UN speakers pockets! And Ummm they did not want to liberate Iraq for why? Ahh food aid. Food for oil! Let's starve the innocent and benefit our country! Is that not the Motto?

Beyond that guy with the missing ear, what about the children escaping from cells being held for not serving for Saddam? The young minds that years ago were haunted by him. My nightmares were of Jaws, an aligator, big spider, and to think that children had nightmares about such a doofy looking man? That itself is scary! Bush has done this clean, as nice as can be, but with power and "no-backing" down attitude!


I do look up to him and I saw this in his wifes eyes. Well before his Presidency, his wife is gentil, a true lady, and stands by him. As where you can see Clinton and his wife took over his Presidency. A woman is to be seen, heard, and spoken too, but a woman also greatly respects a man! As where Mrs. Clinton has no and should have no repect, she downs herself with respect! Mrs. Bush has done well with her man, she has kept him at his wits, has kept him in his line, and best of all, kept him in his home! That's a good woman and good man!

This President will not lie, will not control like a dictator, and will not do anything but what is best for our country. He has my 111111000000% support!

Gore would have been in a mountain in Colorado by now!

JeffreyBryson rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/25/03 - Liberal and Conservative philosophy

Someone please tell me, what is the difference between Liberal and Conservative philosophy. I mean I naturally have some idea, but it seems no one is altogether one or the other, or are they?

ttalady answered on 04/25/03:

Is it not the same as politics? As in beliefs? Abortion, taxes, money, well in general I always though Liberal was all that of Liberal politics and Conservative is that of politics. Beliefs in alll!

K, I am conservative all the way. To my personal opinion liberals hold no religion, minimal, true morals, and value of life itself. Liberals feel sorry for ones that can not better off themselves as Conservatives say you must make them.

DC, I can not be truthful in my answer being the philosophy part may be much different than politics? Is it?

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 04/25/03 - Much Ado About Nothing

The other night there was some jewelry in a box, and my wife asked me to remove it. Then, when I had, she asked me whether there was anything in the box, and I said there wasn't, that the box was empty.

Now my conscience is bothering me. Because I read some place that someone, I think he was called Buddha or something that sounded like that, suggested that nothing existed. So, if Buddha (is that his name does anyone know?) is right, I lied to my wife when I said the box was empty because nothing was in the box.
So I really need to know. Was I lying to my wife because the box really had nothing in it and it was not empty?

Please let me know, so if I was lying I can 'fess up and clear my conscience.

Thank you in advance.

ttalady answered on 04/25/03:

What is nothing to you? Not knowing your wife, lets say she is pretty philosophical herself and maybe testing you. In the box would be air, dust parasites, space, and time. Oh energy as well. There is no such thing as nothing.

Now if your wife is my kinda woman, maybe she was hinting to you! She is in need of some new jewerly.

If nothing exists then how do you have a box? How is it possible to have something with nothing in it? How is it possible to call something with nothing and or empty. You took out jewelry however is there still not either a liner in the box, wood in the box, the backing of a screw in the box? In everything there is something and never nothing let alone nothing existing. If so what are we?

Jen

PS thanks for rating me, finally!!LOL You can even give me one * I guess I just like to know if my time spent on your questions/insight are even read.

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/24/03 - If one follows the trail of philosophy


It seems to me we are getting to the heart of the matter, and that is, what philosophy is or is not. If religion is a philosophy, yes, then the statement, Philosophy is a series of arguments, not away of life.. is indeed wrong. But if we start with that premise and follow it all the way down, where does that leave us? What would _not_ be philosophy, playing ping-pong?

If one follows the trail of philosophy as it has been known and taught [in the western world] up to the present day, post modern philosophy is, as I said, a series of arguments used to separate fact from fiction.

Now if we contrast that with eastern philosophy and compare results, well, that is another matter so Ill end it on that note

ttalady answered on 04/25/03:

In Philosophy is a series of arguments, not away of life., philosophy is a way of life. Life is full of arguments. Life is problem solving, it is full of questions that may never get answered. Life, religion, and philosophy go hand in hand! In all we find facts to support each, however in that we find issues to question and argue as well. Even in religion, do you truly believe that everyone that goes to one church abides by that religion 100% the same? That the iterpretation of a religion is 100% the same in anyone? Sure there are ones that take their religion to extreemes and are that of that group that all killed themselves to go with Aliens. Hey maybe they are with them, who knows? But those people only had religion, no life, no philosophy. No other judgement to equal if not off set beliefs one carries.

Life is ping pong, a roller coaster ride, and in all crazy. Just when you think you have all in control and life is just perfect with all the work you do to make it so, life hands you a new issue to figure out. Some use just religion to figure it out, some use a combination of philosophy and religion to figure it out, and some, like I many times, let life/religion/and philosophy figure it out. Takes a bit longer but the outcome in generally on the up and up. Or I did it wrong, LOL!

Religions are philosophy visa versa. Religions are most likely based on the best philosophy you will ever experiance. Religions do not give you an answer, it gives you guidelines as well as more questions. As does philosophy and of course life!

Jen

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/22/03 - war on terrorism is a religious war,

I suppose I should have been more specific by asking if the war on terrorism is a religious war, because some of the answers clearly indicated, what I consider a battle, was what I meant by the war. I would argue the war, as stated by Bush after 9/11 is, indeed the war. Iraq was and is only a battle in that war. Perhaps that is part of what is causing some confusion about why we were right in crossing Iraqs border in that pursuit.

ttalady answered on 04/25/03:

You are correct that Iraq was mearly a battle in this war on terrorism. Bush clearly stated, even before going into Afghanistan, that this war on terrorism would be a long haul. A very smart political move in not saying "Once we get Osama, the war on terrorism is over". Our government understands, as I and many others, that Osama was not the just one person for 9/11. There are many involved and even if not in his same posse, there are others with the same purposes Osama has.

To get on with if this is a religious war. I would say yes and no. It is hard to really pinpoint this being these terrorists are not so much fighting a set religion. America is not a set religion even though most Americans quite frankly practice America as such. In the acceptance of minorities, other religions, gays, ect. Sure many in America do not approve of such but by law we are to do so. Clearly religious wars are that of Israel and Palestine. No question there, they are fighting over Holy land. The statement that some believe true that many of these groups wish for what America has. I do not believe this for a minute. These people can not possible even desire something they have no idea about. Well they know some about but only the bad of it. My father told me that he saw on the news a couple of weeks ago. A school in Iran, they painted an American flag on the sidewalk for children to walk over. In all a brain wash that America is bad and for their soles only to be upon anything to do with America. How sad these rogue countries literally control their people.

This war is beyond religion. This war is of mistakes, after mistakes, after mistakes. Of course power being duly noted as well. Some parts of the world have florished and have changed with time. Others have not and I believe do not wish to. And others of course are just dying to but need the assistance of others to make the move. These are the ones that America and other countries that have changed with the time come to find the need to help out.

This is a war of humanity. Iraq was so delicatly done being 1. the only beef was with the "President" and the Iraqi regime. 2. That America and the coalition do wish to gain support from Muslims and clearly have done so. 3. And really most important is a statement of "Don't mess with the US". In #3 I imagine that both Osama and Saddam believed nothing would come of America's strong words. Osama as Saddam both believing that all Muslims would rise up and fight the "infidels". Hey, I am still waiting! LOL! It may and could still happen, it all depends on how we, America and our wonderful coalition, handle weeding out the bad roots.

Always love your questions DC!

Jen

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 04/19/03 - Grasping Reality

Those who would rather have a grasp on reality than listen to what pundits and others say who have never been near Iraq ought, really ought, to read the reporting of John Burns, the top reporter of the New York Times who has written a long piece on the "Last, Desperate Days of a Brutal Regime" in The New York Times of April 20 which you can read online now just by going to the New York Times (NYTimes.com)You can then read about what Iraq was really like and make up your own mind

ttalady answered on 04/20/03:

You have yet to rate my answer. MY opinion is that we will never change. As I feel in my foolish heart that forever people will be at war. It is our non-understanding as well as understanding.

Take a moment and be nice in rating others.

I have to see you repect others opinions!

Jen

Jon1667 rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 04/19/03 - Does philosophy matter?

The following is a precise of an article in Critical Inquiry by Stanley Fish.
It may surprise people to learn that I agree with Fish almost entirely, although I think that the part of philosophy known as critical thinking will motivate people to make correct practical choices. But I would like to hear the comments of others. Let me add that it is important to notice in what sense Fish means that philosophy does not matter.

Here is the piece by Fish:

Truth but No Consequences: Why Philosophy Doesn't Matter

Stanley Fish



1

When in the wake of September 11 a number of commentators began to draw lines of cause and effect between what had happened and the "rise" of postmodernism, a new chapter was opened in a very old story. It is the story of the supposed relationship between philosophy at its highest reaches and the events of history. The governing thesis that makes the story go is that philosophy matters and matters both at the societal level the actions of a society will in some sense follow from the philosophical views encoded in its institutionsand at the level of the individual who will think or do something as a consequence of the philosophical views to which he or she is committed. My counterthesis is that philosophy doesn't matter and that when faced with a crisis or choice or decision you and I will typically have recourse to many thingsarchives, consultations with experts, consultations with friends, consultations with psychiatrists, consultations with horoscopesbut one of the things we will not typically consult (and if we did it wouldn't do us any good) is some philosophical position we happen to espouse.



Let me make clear what I do and do not mean by philosophical position. I don't mean a substantive idea, like the idea that gender differences justify discriminatory practices or the (opposing) idea that they don't. Ideas like those most certainly matter and have real world consequences as the history of the twentieth century amply shows. Moreover if you are committed to one of those ideas, you will be inclined to act in certain ways in certain situations. You say to yourself (for example), "since I believe that gender differences do not justify differences in compensation, I will take care that men and women receive equal pay for equal work." But if you say to yourself, "I believe that what is true is what corresponds to the independently specified facts," or, alternatively, "I believe that truths are internal to historically emergent and revisable frames of reference or interpretive communities," nothing follows with respect to any issue except the issue of which theory of truth is the correct one. That is to say, whatever theory of truth you might espouse will be irrelevant to your position on the truth of a particular matter because your position on the truth of a particular matter will flow from your sense of where the evidence lies, which will in turn flow from the authorities you respect, the archives you trust, and so on. It is theories of truth on that general level that I refer to when I say that philosophy doesn't matter.



Stanley Fish Stanley Fish is dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. His most recent books are The Trouble with Principle (1999) and How Milton Works (2001).

ttalady answered on 04/20/03:

"since I believe that gender differences do not justify differences in compensation, I will take care that men and women receive equal pay for equal work." BUT" The flaw as well as regection to his statement. He double no-ed what he said in But. He took away his past stament to make since of his next. RE-READ!

"But if you say to yourself, "I believe that what is true is what corresponds to the independently specified facts," or, alternatively, "I believe that truths are internal to historically emergent and revisable frames of reference or interpretive communities," nothing follows with respect to any issue except the issue of which theory of truth is the correct one. That is to say, whatever theory of truth you might espouse will be irrelevant to your position on the truth of a particular matter because your position on the truth of a particular matter will flow from your sense of where the evidence lies, which will in turn flow from the authorities you respect, the archives you trust, and so on. It is theories of truth on that general level that I refer to when I say that philosophy doesn't matter.

The "But" word ruins is all for fact!





Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/17/03 - Thank God, there are some bright young students

FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003



WE'RE NOT IN MOGADISHU ANYMORE, TOTO



The gloves are coming off. Since the war began, the United States military and the Bush administration have focused on saving Iraqi civilians, even at the cost of American lives. That strategy has worked brilliantly; photos of cheering Iraqis greeting their American liberators continue to flow into newspapers. But now that the war has finally gotten down to the nitty-gritty, we're pulling no punches.

Saddam Hussein, al Qaeda and much of the Arab world thought that the war in Iraq would turn into one large-scale Mogadishu. They had good reason to believe it. For a decade, the U.S. leadership had two priorities in any war, in order of perceived importance: first, minimize civilian casualties, and second, minimize American casualties. To achieve those two goals, Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton never got the United States deeply involved in any conflict. This pattern of activity led Osama Bin Laden to peg the United States as a "weak horse."

The early stages of this war were characterized by a similarly high regard for civilians. The British had to battle it out door to door in Basra for nearly two weeks before taking control of the city.

April 7, 2003, marked a turning point. The U.S. military learned that Saddam Hussein, senior officials and members of his Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) were meeting in a facility behind or beneath a restaurant in the al Salaa commercial block of Baghdad. At about 2:48 p.m., an Air Force B-1B bomber refueling over western Iraq got the order: Attack the restaurant -- this could be "the big one." Twelve minutes later, the B-1B dropped four satellite-guided 1-ton Joint Direct Attack Munition weapons, leaving a crater 60 feet deep and flattening the restaurant as well as three nearby houses. At least 14 civilians were killed.

But why would Saddam meet with his senior staff in a vulnerable area? Saddam was counting on the "Mogadishu syndrome" to prevent any U.S. attack on him. According to the Washington Times, "the IIS may have picked the spot to meet because it did not believe the allies would bomb a commercial block. The allies have stated their objective to avoid civilian casualties." Saddam didn't realize: The Mogadishu days are over.

On Tuesday, another incident confirmed the new strategic change. Iraqi snipers were using the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad to fire small arms and rocket-propelled grenades on an incoming U.S. tank. The tank immediately targeted the hotel, a base of operations for most international journalists, and fired one round of artillery into it, hitting the 15th floor, which housed Reuters news agency. Two journalists were killed, and another three were wounded. Firing from the building apparently stopped, since the tank did not fire a second round. Army Col. David Perkins, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, told the media that the military regretted the incident but blamed Saddam Hussein's forces for militarizing civilian areas.

The attack on the Palestine Hotel sends an even stronger message that enemies of the United States can no longer find safety in hiding behind civilians or even journalists. Killing Iraqi civilians is bad enough for public relations, but killing reporters is as bad as it gets. This is a brand-new idea -- the U.S. military will not sacrifice troops, even when journalists are in harm's way. As Brigadier Gen. Vincent K. Brooks stated, "We don't know every place journalists are operating on the battlefield. It's a dangerous place indeed."

With the U.S. military and the Bush administration conquering the Mogadishu syndrome, the next step is to allow our allies against Islamic terror to do the same thing.

The Israeli version of the "Mogadishu syndrome" is the "Jenin syndrome." Israel's consistent attempts to minimize civilian casualties have been overlooked by most of the world, including the U.S. government, which has often condemned Israel for its anti-terror operations. In an eerily similar situation to the anti-Saddam air strike, Israeli F-16s bombed an apartment complex housing Hamas terrorist leader Salah Shehade on July 23, 2002, killing Shehade as well as 14 civilians. The U.S. government condemned the attack, with White House press secretary Ari Fleischer calling the attack "heavy-handed." Now that the U.S. military has faced a similar enemy and dealt with it in the same way, U.S. policy toward Israeli anti-terror must change.

The United States has achieved an important step in the war against terror: overcoming our own aversion to civilian casualties in order to achieve victory. The attacks on Saddam and the Iraqi snipers push our military policy in a new direction, away from Mogadishu. For the United States to win the global war on terror, it must let our allies overcome their own Mogadishus.

Benjamin Shapiro, 19, is currently a junior at UCLA.

Isn't is nice to see some bright youn men who do get thier facts straight?

ttalady answered on 04/17/03:

A very bright man I must say!!:) Specially being at UCLA and have the cahonies to write the truth at such a leftist school. I wonder how many friends he has, LOL!

One thing I disagree with in his writing is the issue with Israel. To compare Israel to America is foolish. To compare the capabilities of Israel is foolish. We do not have Holy wars in America. Israel and the Middle East have been living a Holy war all their lives. For Israel to even think that they can take such things on is just crazy and in all a death wish for that country. They have way too many enemies around them, as in where they are located. The truth stands they are sitting ducks even in retalliation. I have no doubt in my mind that if Israel decides to put more pressure and act more forcefully even in retalliation that Palestine or any of the Arab countries would not flinch at launching a totally destroying raid on them.

I watched this PBS program last night I think called "Stopping Armagedon". The basic view was on the Middle East and the fact that WMD's and/or nuclear war heads are in fact MIA. From the old Soviet Republic. We have no clue who has what really. The priority list for the extreemist or rouge nations are:

1) America
2) Israel
and 3) most likely now, the UK

America being the strong hold of freedom and supporting Israel. I truely believe if not for the US, Israel would be a glass rollerskating rink by now. So in that the best Israel should do for the sake of their possible peace is to be as still as possible. I trust we, the US, have many countries thinking a couple of times before doing as they do. They have seen our resolve and the truth is most of the Middle East starves for freedom. Freedom from the dictators and extreemists they have controlling their countries. As seen in Iraq and I also believe the only reason they want us out so quick is the fear of when we do leave. Will they be attacked by their own Arab brothers for having not done the MOGADISHU's? Yet to be seen and said!

Jen

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/15/03 - the private world, in which we live;

What is it about belief that makes it so powerful, such a force of energy?

We each, truly create the private world, in which we live; and it is through this thing we describe as belief.

Can Analytic Philosophy tell us anything about this?

Can Enlightenment Philosophy tell us?

ttalady answered on 04/15/03:

You question so beautifully! Forget the last two questions, I'll go on the statements!

Belief and morals come with maturity. With time. Even if one that practices a religion I believe they never understand the true concept until the maturity and age comes with it. As for I was stuck in this middle of everything. Not knowing what I really was inside in beliefs, morals, let alone religion. Religion I have yet to figure out. I can recall though during a rough time of my best friend having decided to have an abortion. Been with the guy for three months but I knew that something was wrong here. Being so... in the middle of beliefs I actually supported her in her doings. Boy I could take that back. And to think she is still with him after 10 years and now expecting!

The energy of beliefs comes from what you don't know, wish to know, and have somewhat learned. If you just had them then it would be saying you can breathe. As where we all have that "soul" thing that comes in. The real feeling of being alive!

Our private world is the world of one person. That is what everyone of us comes to realize that we each have our own cause, love, and reason for being here. You make it sound so.... sad when we all feel and think the same, just on different levels. Everyone has certain talents, necessities of life, as well as meanings. Yes I believe there is a map for me somewhere. But in that map are many cross roads that we all must make a decision on. We all have dead ends but building a bridge bringing you to new roads.

tta

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/13/03 - War on Terrorist

It's interesting that people have still not caught onto the new phase that entered into US foreign policy the day of Sep 11, and how it has redefined the world, terrorism and war; and how we have all, for some unknown reason, continued to debate what 'international terrorism' is.

ttalady answered on 04/15/03:

International terrorism= don't F with the US. Ok DC, the truth stands, policies are all of a sudden being brodened. For me, it's about time. I know all what happened on 9/11 has happened all around the world, not in such extreeme, but now US is the target. Due to us being "infidels". I quite wonder how that is such?

I will be the first to admit that I have no clue what our government really does. So many "say" they know, well that is just plain acceptance that they have no clue. As where the CIA does not know all of the FBI. All is well divided to protect what is in need of protecting.

All I can say as an American is that we messed up times before with protecting our butts. Well the government messed up. But in that is fixing needed to be done, to show the world that we are serious on our words and for 9/11 to happen, well many allowed that to happen. Including Saddam.

It's actually quite interesting that terrorism is beyond what it was before 9/11. You just don't mess with the US! Bumper sticker there!

tta :)

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 04/11/03 - Education

Should educators have the choice of restricting the syllabus to core subjects and teaching them in depth (if they are up to it), or broadening it to provide a superficial grasp of a range of subjects. Is it possible to become competent in humanities, science, foreign languages, and mathematics plus literature/arts/music/social sciences plus understanding how processes work within the limits of the school/university year? When should specialization begin? Without it there can be no mastery: with it may be lack of understanding of other areas of knowledge and a deep division between science and the humanities.

ttalady answered on 04/11/03:

To try and best answer this let me tell you my thought on how education fails the student.

It is a fact that each and every person in this world has strong points and weak points in learning. My belief is because we are all with certain talents. Unfortanetly our schools do not truly focus on such things. They can not see past a passing or failing grade. Then some educators teach based on their preference as well as what they are taught would give us the most beneficial knowledge. Our schools fail to see an individual student being capable of more or something different. Granted most do not have knowledge when it come to psychology however that is all the education system failing on them. The "higher intelligent" students are focused on and in all are given more opportunities. When the "lower in intelligence" ones are left to fend for themselves. On the lower end could it not be that they are just not using their talents due to the curriculum?

Too much is "expected" of our children. It is not too much in learning but in what they have to learn. My youngest brother had problems in school. They claim it was that he was "slow" however could it be that his talent was not in Math, Science, or History, but in acting! As where three years ago finding his talent, dream, in just taking a drama class in a Community College to be accepted and one year to go at a highly prestige College. Very expensive too!

All too often it seems that many take the long demanding journey of college degrees however get out and either find something totally opposite that is what they are meant for or come out confused on what they are to do. With so.... much "knowledge" but applying it to what talent they have. What they can do. Our education system need not give the numbers on comparing the US to Japan. You can not compare the knowledge of a communist country to that of a democracy. Or are we to become that of "making" our children learn instead of "wanting" them to learn.

The true philosophy of knowledge is the need for it. Not to be forced upon, then it becomes a demand. We need the basic teachings however I would say from 3rd grade on the over all school system should have an idea of what a child is all about. From a talent stand point to strong points to lean towards. Chances are the best political leaders possible are working on cars, building houses, or typing on a computer 8 hours a day. The education dept failed them!

tta

chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 04/07/03 - The Voracity of Fortune Tellers and Mediums

How can we know the unknowable? This is always my response to psychics, mediums, fortune tellers and so on. So my question is, how can one gauge the voracity of people that claim to know the unknowable?

ttalady answered on 04/08/03:

Hey I went once! I was shocked! Just a little older lady in a hick town but said to be pretty good. I had been in a snowmobile accident a year and a half prior. Nothing major but did injure my knee pretty good when it slammed on a rock about 8 inches by 8 inches. My knee only took a half an hour to blow up like a balloon. Anyway almost two years after the fact in general it was doing ok. Nothing broke, nothing major, but to that day I could not kneel on that knee. It would send shocking pains through my body.

So went to the psychic just for jollys really and when it was my turn, my two good buddies and I went, the first thing she did was put her hand on that knee as I sat down and said "Sweetie, it is not yet repaired, you must go back to the doctor and get this taken care of". I did not know this lady from even one I would pass in a supermarket and walking I was fine, no limping, it was just the kneeling on it. The she spoke of a lady in water. I truly said nothing to her but shake my head for "yes, understand, or not do not". This lady young, black hair, red lips, and moving her hands back and forth through water. She said this is my guardian angel in which is my Grandmother on my Mother side that drowned in a plane crash before I was even thought of. Then two crushers. My bf's Father died of cancer to the throat. She spoke of my bf like she really knew him. His family, really him. Remember I had never met her, what she spoke of is not on any sort of book let alone when she take appts you can only give her your first name. She will not call you back to make the appt if you give her your last name. Credibility I am sure!

To make it short and not give you the full hour of her reading I went back to the doctor a month after the fact and sure enough I had infection in my knee being the problem with kneeling. Simple Cortisone shot however could have cause me major problems for my future. 100% cured now! I have never had visions yet many time have had feelings. Gut feelings that just pop up. From a simple car coming down the road too fast (blind spot mind you) and out of just doing so moving over to when my Grandmother had been unconcious for two weeks and my father (her son) asking what she is holding on for. I told him out of my gut/soul/belief that she was waiting to tell everyone she loves "Goodbye". The hours before her last heart beat EVERYONE had stopped by to see her, called if they could not be there, and these were people that really did not know how sick she was. She did not speak but in what I really knew then and know to this day is that she waited for that. I heard her, I did, and let them know that she is waiting to say "Goodbye".

I know it sounds crazy, rediculious, if only you could speak to the some what knowing. What blocks most from the "un-knowing" is the desire to want to "know" too much. It's called being opening minded, skeptical, in all letting life give you more than you want. There are plenty of fakes out there. You can tell the fakes by how they advertise themselves. The one I went to was word of mouth, no advertisement in the local paper, no hot line. Our local police dept. has used her on several occasions to find missing people, crime scenes, ect. I know this from fact of the officers.

Some are just blessed or would it be troubled with such knowledge!

Jen

chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 04/02/03 - What is Philosophy about?




Is it just about studying, thinking, discussing, arguing, debating .....the exact same subjects and issues that people have been studying, thinking, discussing, arguing, debating about since the first ape stood upright on the African plains ............AND NEVER REACHING ANY CONCLUSIVE RESULTS.



I wonder if Wittgenstein had something like this in mind when he said "Philosophy is not a body of doctrine but an activity."

ttalady answered on 04/02/03:

Hey DC!!:) I find what this is all about is finding understanding or acceptance of life in general. Being you and others here are so into philosophy I think you look past the simple things that simple people use yet being philosophical. I find most to be common sense. Just working out a thought and finding all around it to support the theory. I am a BIG fan of Dr. Laura and the one thing that makes me the BIG fan is her philosophical views on issues that seem to me and the asker to be so hard to see.

In truth philosophy has much to do with morality! One that does not posses morals, well we all have some, let's say strong morals. They are the ones that can not see the beauty of philosophy. The direction it gives one and many in debating, thinking, trying to find a theory on a subject. I use to be one that did not see this. Lost in my own little world of truely defining things on a daily basis and not really looking for morality let alone a philosophical point to much. A go-with-the-flow-gal. People liked me much better that way!

As you know I have yet to truely study the subject however in reading postings on this board it truely gives me insight alone. To me the philosophy of a human trying to figure out anothers theory on an issue. Sometimes getting a little out of hand but finding that with two/three/ or more in debate on an issue the debate alone most likely gives the true answer to the question at hand. If only you listen to everything! Quite interesting!

Take care,
Jen

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Choux asked on 03/27/03 - Thoughts on War

Do you think that the worst thing in a person's life is to die? (I don't).

Perhaps the above conviction is a roadblock to communicating about the War on Saddam and his men.

Chou

ttalady answered on 03/28/03:

Hey Chou! I think I understand what you are getting at but I've been wrong before. Depending on beliefs of course in general death in America seems to be more of a being reborn. Remember all of the "psycic's" we have in our country! People talking to the dead and I will admit I went to one once and in all honesty, I was shocked. Again all based on religious beliefs but I am one that believes in life after passing on.

All too often I have wondered if death is not truely the ultimate good thing that happens in ones life. That possibley "living" could be just the test between a better or worse place. I find the worst thing in life is watching another die. Specially when it is a long process. When you start out praying for them, wanting them to just recover from the illness, to be as they were when healthy. Then eventually almost hoping for the day for the person to pass on. With the belief "No more pain" for this person. Then when the moment occurs not only the sadness you feel that it is "final" however such a release with the belief that this one is pain free. Whether or not that is true, well I'll find out on my day, but in all honesty I find seeing another die with a long process well more painful and the worst over thinking of myself dying.

As where with the war, the US screwed up with the Gulf war. Knowing that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated from him, taking up arms against Iraq, and when the US left him in power, well they saw the reprocussion. Saddam believes he is God therefore nothing to even work with there. His people are the ones that need to make the decision, and yes with possible death facing each one. The people are stuck between two evils in their mind. Which one to side with to hopefully live a life.

tta

Choux rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 03/18/03 - Spirituality?
Spirituality

This is prompted by Hank. What on earth is spirituality? Is it belief in God, or gods? Is it just belief in the supernatural? Would someone please explain? (I never even heard of it before this board)

ttalady answered on 03/20/03:

Hello Jon! My meaning/answer to spirituality is quite confusing yet maybe in explaining it the best I can you might understand it. Spirituality is held by one individual. In some cases it goes along with a religion being religion is something taught and accepted to one. Being spiritual can be just alone as well though. See I understand it to be something that is the combination of past, present, and hopeful future. In all how you lead your life as an individual with out major influences around you. To take beliefs (religious or not), personality, teachings, and the acceptance of yourself as you are. To know you have meaning in life and even as you may change thru it, it is a road taken.

In my personal journey, having not been brought up in a religious household, spirituality has been hard to find. Reason being that I find beliefs to be so... very important to this and with one that has true minimal beliefs, well I have personally gone thru belief changes. Much due to aging, outside influences, and in all just accepting something greater than I into my life. To be truly spiritual you do believe in something greater than you. Whether being nature, a God or Gods, and for some aliens. I see this as more of practicing ones own religion, "making one up" to fit ones life and past experiances, and for the good the true need for understanding life. That is if JUST spiritual with out guidance of religion.

Have you ever had that moment when you can just feel yourself shining? Not when you got lucky on a card game, just passed an exam, or recieved an unexpected compliment. But when having done a true act of kindness, compasion, not even thinking act. This is that of being spiritual. A connection of doing something good and right and not just once. An example for myself would be the time I was behind a big rig truck driver that was at a stop light. He had most likely been taking a nap prior to this so most likely half awake. Well his trailer was open in the back and being I just had a feeling he did not know, he was going to hop onto an interstate and loose all of his cargo, I instantly jump out of my vehicle and flagged him down. Of course there were atleast 10 other vehicles around him and others that saw this yet just pointed. Can you guess that I made his day out of being kind and informative?

Being spiritual is even going as far as lending an ear to one that you don't fancy. To know in your heart that there are purposes for everything that happens in ones life even if it seems so horrible. 9/11 really brought out this in me. I had never understood let alone respected my country as I do now. All too often complaining about taxes and the system. Then seeing how precious life is, how easily it can be taken, and how much I have yet to learn. I pray to a God I do not know. I do not have a religion and just hope to what ever I pray to hears me. When I do pray it is never for myself, always for another, and in that I do offer myself as replacement of another. I also pray for peace of the ones that in spirit, are ready to go. This is my spirituality!

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 03/10/03 - Our Dear Patriots!

I was astonished by the unanimous agreement among you American people I met here about the (anticipated) war. It is not less astonishing that the majority of the rest of the world is against this war, and I am personally against it, for reasons that have nothing to do with the fact that the surname of Saddam is the same as my name :)!! My reasons are that the American presence in the region is not invited, and so not desirable, and that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in the claims that America throws every now and then; it is all about oil and control of the region, regardless of all this moving talk about the violation of human rights in there. Wasn't America there when Saddam used these weapons against the Shi'ites and the Kurds? Wasn't america in the very first place the one who provided him with these weapons? Enough BS!
Now I'm trying to explore your motives behind supporting this. What I think is that the American government intentionally misleads the American people with such crap like what is said about the threat Saddam can make to America, and the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. This would be best suited for a third world country, where the media is all dominated by the government. The other possibility is that it is not about being misled, but rather, for the love of that country that makes one supports any decision the country does, just because it is in the name of the country, this is what patriotism is, right?
I heared an interesting quote, probably by Oscar Wilde, which was: "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" Of course I don't mean you people, since most of you show extreme kindness, what I mean is the politicians who appeal to people's emotions by this talk about patritism, and "what is good for the country" and "what will make this country great" and stuff.
Maybe there are other views of patriotism, but the way I see it is not positive at all; for me I prefer to think as a human being, rather than an Egyptian, although I'm proud of this as well, but I can recogize the wrong when my country does it and resist it ( the way I can), not just go on justifying it!
That's the message I want to deliver to you, my patriotic friends,

Hussein

ttalady answered on 03/12/03:

Dearest Hussein,

In the quote "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" it is correct. Understand this Patriotism we hold so dear that this is much like religion, a soul, life. I understand and respect your arguement however can you understand that other countries can only push us so far? Not even countries, just threats in general. We have our own issues here in America as you know as an American. 9/11 put us over accepting other countries buring our flag, the Anti-American feel that there is, ect. Hey, I don't give two cow pies if anyone hates us as long as they keep it to themselves and not threat let alone show their Anti-American views by ways of death of 3,000 people.

Have you ever been in a or around a school fight? Where you have two people punching, fighting, getting bloody yet you only have two doing the fighting and 15 other standing around supporting one side or the other? The guy/gal starting the fight has his/her buddies around them sparking the deal. The one willing to fight all the same. America got sucker punch on 9/11 and what do you think helped that out? Was it that 99% of the world likes America or 99% of the world is Anti-American? Come on think about it? Are we going to be sucker punched again? NO WAY AND AT 28 FEMALE I WILL SIGN UP TO DEFEND MY COUNTRY!

We will not cower. I question if you take you being "Egyptian" over being an "American"? As where we have "African-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japenese-Americans, ect ect ect". Does you being of Egyptian decent make you Egyptian-American or just an American? Hey I can label myself Irish/English/Polish-American, however I know that a TRUE AMERICAN IS JUST AMERICAN! Tis the land that we are free on, are prosporuse on, and for me and many will die for! This is my land! Is it yours?

tta

hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tomder55 asked on 03/11/03 - Containment

Without the constant U.S. presence in the Gulf for the last 12 years ;is Saddam Hussein contained ? If the U.S. didn't almost unilaterally enforce the U.N. resolutions ,what would the state of the Iraqi military be today ? Would Hussein allow the destruction of a sling shot if he were not compelled by force to do so ?If the U.S. did not intervene ,and lead the coalition against Iraq in 1990 ,how much of the region would Hussein control. Would the people of the region be better or worse off ? If the U.S. were to leave today would the Middle East be a more stable region? Would Hussein be a greater or less of a threat to the region ?

Did the sanction process collapse because the very nations that are blocking action by the U.N were the greatest violators of the sanctions ? Does Hussein take the antiwar movement as encouragement ? Does he not gleefully watch as alliances against him fall apart ? Why should he comply ,when all he need do is wait it out ? Who is suffering ;him? No ,he lives like a King. The people who suffer are the Iraqi citizen .Hussein takes refuge in our fecklessness.

ttalady answered on 03/12/03:

With you brother/sister!! I have one notion that has stuck with me for over a year, to the day. Saddam was involved in 9/11, I said it out loud once the word was said that America was under attack. I don't call myself as having a special power of any sort however this is not the first time I JUST KNEW! Proof is yet to come but it is there, we will find it!

We (America) will liberate a country, we will find some peace in that he is not an issue, and we will have redemption for 9/11 in doing as has to be done. Alqueda will spark up, no doubt, but in that there is some major knowledge in what that will be. It's like someone trying to catch a mouse in a hay stack. That someone can lay at the bottom of the stack and say "Here mousie, mousie". Of course no mouse. You set out the piece of cheese, done deal!

I just feel really sorry for all the countries that are giving the US a hard time. They have yet to learn the ways of the world and the proper way to end war on the world and gain peace.

There is much to this that beyond the normal news watcher could not and should not understand. It is that of playing chess and moving your pawn in the right place. Watch and see!

tta

tomder55 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
JeffreyBryson asked on 03/11/03 - The Future for France

Feel free to comment as you will about whether these officials are or are not over the top with their protests here.

This article, though, stimulates me to pose the question of the sort of status France will possibly or likely have with the world in months to come because of its war stance.




Au revoir to French food names

Politics of culinary nomenclature captivate U.S. House


ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, March 11 Show the flag and pass the ketchup was the order of the day in House cafeterias Tuesday. Lawmakers struck a lunchtime blow against the French and put freedom fries on the menu. And for breakfast theyll now have freedom toast.

THE NAME changes follow similar actions by restaurants around the country protesting French opposition to the administrations Iraq war plans.
Update. Now Serving in All House Office Buildings, Freedom Fries, read a sign that Republican Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and Walter Jones of North Carolina placed at the register in the Longworth Office Building food court.
Jones said he was inspired by Cubbies restaurant in Beaufort, N.C., in his district, one of the first to put freedom fries on the menu instead of french fries.

SMALL BUT SYMBOLIC EFFORT
This action today is a small but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France, said Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee.
Ney, whose panel oversees House operations, ordered the menu changes.
Advertisement

The French Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment, except to say that french fries actually come from Belgium.
Ney said he was of French descent and once the French government comes around we can get back to talking about french fries.
On a more serious note, Republican Jim Saxton of New Jersey has proposed a ban on Pentagon participation in this years Paris Air Show and restrictions on French participation in any postwar construction projects in Iraq.
But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said at a news conference that applying legislative sanctions to France was not necessary. I dont think we have to retaliate against France. Theyve isolated themselves pretty well, he said.


ttalady answered on 03/12/03:

Hey it is about time. Not nessecarily with the French however it is about time that Americans started to feel what we are getting from other countries. NOTHING!!! Hey, they hate us. In general every country hates us. Even most of Canada that we protect! To be a simple Sally and see all too often in my 28 years other countries burn our flag in protest, stomp on our country, do as we have always just sat back on! It's about time we took a stance on stomping back!

Since Pearl Harbor America has never had an issue with one showing hatred of our country on our country. 9/11 gave us what exactly America felt the day of Pearl Harbor. So soon we forgot, well many of us never experianced. America is a strong power however we are just as sucepticble to harm.

The way to preceive this is that Americans thought that we don't have to deal with the hatred others have on us. Just like the bully/bullies that poke you in the back and you try to ignore, finally ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

It is about time America stood up for themselves and gave a punch back to ones that America helped survive! The French are backstabing America for the pure fact of doing it. America (my country) is very weak right now! Split through politics. France is hoping to take over the position that America has in the world and all thru deception. For that they are backstabbers and will pay thru their pockets.

Hey good luck to them! Ass kissing wise, well lets just say they better bye some lip balm, they are going to do A LOT OF IT!

TTA

JeffreyBryson rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 03/12/03 - Back to philosophy, Nature Nurture again:)

Hi people here,
Ooops, it is a philosophy board, I already forgot!! I think I got unnecessarily deep into this political crap that is being discussed every now and then. I think niether of us benefited anything from such discussions, for me at least I didn't except to know that some people can very easily bypass rationality to justify their political beliefs (sometimes including me, I admit). So I will limit my participation here from now on to asking purely philosophical questions.


Now my question is, if the child is born really with his mind tabula rasa, then how could he acquire the information and the knowledge from the outside world. There has to be some innate knowledge that allows him to process and store this information. You cannot just assume that the ultimate source of knowledge is external, if this is the case, why wouldn't any non-human being acquire any human skill/ability/knowledge.
I'm not up-to-date with the recent views about this, I only remember it from psychology class.

Hussein

ttalady answered on 03/12/03:

It's in the JEANS! He he he... For real though, maybe the soul (with religious beliefs). To support this I have a case and study of living with my sister (step sister). This is not just knowledge, it is so much like you are programmed somehow from two people.

My sister had not known her father until she was 18. However the true personality traits she holds to this day is totally of our Mother and her father. At six months the marriage ended with her father and our mother. So being what is said that a child of six months could not remember let alone truely process traits of one for the next 18.5 years, well it's in the genes/soul. See my sister is not that of having "mental" issues, they are so-called "personality disorders". Some that our mother does carry however just as many that her father carries. Personality disorders are not that from interaction of others as one might think:

Causes, incidence, and risk factors
The exact cause of personality disorders is not known, however, several theories attempt to explain the cause. Biologic theorists believe chromosomal or nervous system disorders are the cause. Social theorists believe learned behavior responses cause the disorders. Psychodynamic theorists use deficiencies in ego development to explain the causes.

In reality a child is not born with one mind, one fresh young mind to be formed by the already born. A child is born with a mind already developed in many ways. Most likely more so when it comes to emotions however in the same sense they have a sense about them. Have you ever encountered just looking at a child and it begins to cry for no reason? As well as a child that just seems to want to touch you or stare at you? Boy I have, on both sides and not being on the religious side here but in general there is something way further in a child as in just life. An energy that is that of nature and nurturing. Nature is what can not be controlled, nuturing is what is controlled. Even at 5 both are so strong in a child. That of the obvious, want to touch something hot, not knowing "hot" or even knowing and tempting "hot". That is nature. Nurturing comes with the lesson of hot and tempting hot!

A mind "tabula rasa" is powerful, however the fact is the mind does not truly control, interpret, let alone make a person. For the religious, it is a soul (as I believe), for others it is energy.

tta





hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
tonyrey asked on 03/02/03 - What is your scale of values?

What is your scale of values regarding
(i) inanimate objects, (ii) living organisms and (iii)
persons? How would you justify your view ... or do you think values cannot be justified by reasons?

ttalady answered on 03/04/03:

I find them quite equal. There is something to be said about appreciating what is around you whether being that of human, flower, worm, desk, lamp, ect.

To justify with one situation:

Sitting at home one night, cold night, and having had two glasses of wine. Getting ready for the B.E.D in which I alway take a glass of water with me. Turn the faucet on, NO WATER! Not good, specially when you are just dying for a glass. Sure enough have some milk, soda, OJ, but no water. Next morning, even worse. Luckily it was on the weekend but I would have paid 100$ that morning for just a glass of water. Sure I could have melted some snow, boiled some pond water, but just the not having the faucet water was tourcher to me.

This was the first time ever in my life respecting water as I now do. The feeling and knowing you are with out it, having one need it so... very bad, but too bad, you can not have it!

tonyrey rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 03/02/03 - Morality

What is the morality in bribing the UN security council to support a war (in Iraq) waged, we are told, on moral grounds?

ttalady answered on 03/04/03:

Who's bribing who? See I see this as a little game of poker with the UN. They all want and in a way demand payoffs for supporting Iraq! There is not morality in this whole UN dealing at if. If that were the case has it been moral to not hold a man to his word with some 17 UN resolutions?

The UN is a big joke in my eyes. It is a congregation of players looking out for their and only their best interests. Not to say the US is any different, however it is a group of poker players looking for a pay out of some sort. Whether it be $$$$, of course number one to all, how it would benefit ones country, or for some just having some secert plan behind what may come.

If there was any morality with the UN they would see that Saddam has to go. Not necessarily with war but it has come to that being they pussy footed around the situation for twelve years thinking that in general "We are at peace". 9/11 showed the world the fake peace we have been living in and in all honesty I believe the ones that have not yet been bought, well they see that 9/11 was more of a bonus to them than such a downfall. What country would not just love the fall of America? Canada possibly, but that's all I can think of!

Best to you Chek!

chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
nel_cuore_della_vita asked on 02/27/03 - how do we control our impulses and what happens when we let them out? Basicly the animal instict wit

how do we control our impulses and what happens when we let them out? Basicly the animal instict withing us and how do we control it? How does it relate to good and evil?

ttalady answered on 02/27/03:

Oh, you are on my level!! He he, love the animal factors in humans. Most of these guys/gals don't get me, kinda maybe, but I gotcha!

So on the impulse! Oh this is totally a combination of what we have expericanced, what we were taught, what we feel. All times not thinking but just have to. To control, it is stopping, thinking, figuring out. I relate this to last night when I was looking at my kitty cat standing on the stairs. We have two Alaskan Mala-muts that just love the outdoors, therefore have the roaming area. Anyway the coyotes were sounding off and our two pups like to join in the howling, barking, what ever, and kitty cat lost herself and forgot she was in the house. A defense mechanism however all on impulse. She ran like moc 3 and sure enough would not been seen for 10 minutes after the noise stopped!

Impulse is all in not thinking. Of truly knowing the deal but in all a feeling of real good or real danger. Almost like lust. It's good to have it, you most likely fool yourself for having not thought, and in the end it was the best trip of your life or the worst mistake you have ever made. Hey, as long as this is once a while, go with it! Maybe it is somewhat of a destiny to be done. Something that one puppets us to do, we don't have a choice of, it is destiny!

Just don't have that compulsive impulsive disorder! That is just meaning you don't think at all!

Best to you!
tta

nel_cuore_della_vita rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 02/24/03 - Opinion Essay - War in Iraq?

America, it could be argued, is largely uninformed about the world it dominates. Indeed in the "US House of Representatives, barely one fifth of members hold current passports".

That said, we appear to be on the brink of a war in the Middle East that may destabilize the US and the Middle East for decades, if not longer. World leaders face a horrible dilemma. There can be no doubt that United Nations weapons inspectors have been able to return to Iraq only because of the threat of military intervention from the US and Britain, and if the threat is removed it is likely Saddam Hussein will resume his prescribed activities. However, it is far from clear that military action will lead to a democratic Iraq and a safe, secure, peaceful Middle East.

On balance, it is probable that war will lead to a coalition between moderate and fundamentalist Muslims. Israel will be at even greater risk, the "clash of civilisations" will continue, and terrorism will increase generally, including in our region. Either way, the UN is likely to be damaged - either by a conviction that Saddam has bluffed it, or that George Bush has coerced it.

One of the most worrying aspects of the potential conflict is the low level of understanding or experience of the Middle East by Western leaders, which results in complex issues being treated as if they were simple.

The world now faces an era of asymmetrical conflict: US v Iraq/al-Qaeda. There is one superpower. Which is No. 2? This is not clear - but it is certainly not Iraq or al-Qaeda. Instability/insecurity is caused by the breakdown of nation states, for example Afghanistan. Terrorist networks break all the rules; they are capable of selective attack against a superpower using, for example, domestic aircraft as bombs. But the superpower then responds in the only way it knows how: a full-scale attack, in this case not against the original target but against a substitute, Iraq.

There has been a civil war within the Muslim world: fundamentalists v modernizers. The fundamentalists support the sharia law, denounce infidels such as Saddam, oppose tolerance of other belief systems, refuse co-operation with the US ("the Great Satan") or the West, and support war to annihilate Israel. Modernizers recognize the significance of technological and social change and are prepared to co-operate with the West and recognize Israel, provided there is a land settlement with the Palestinians.

September 11, 2001, was a turning point in history. Americans, understandably shocked by the attacks on New York and Washington, have a deep psychological need to retaliate, somewhere. Some apologists for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq argue that the "leaders of the US, because of what they have been through, should not be judged too harshly for concentrating on the wrong target - if not Osama then Saddam, if not al-Qaeda then Iraq".

I feel more threatened by al-Qaeda than by Iraq because its sphere of operations is wider, more random and therefore not predictable - Nairobi and Dar es Salaam one day, New York and Washington another, the Red Sea and Bali yet another. Saddam's sphere has been far more limited and predictable - his immediate neighborhood, Iran, Kuwait, Israel and the Kurds.

The American case asserting links between Iraq and al-Qaeda is deeply implausible. I agree that Saddam is a monster, a cruel dictator who has committed unspeakable cruelties against his people. But he is not Robinson Crusoe in that. And he has been that way for more than 20 years, certainly in the 1980s when the Americans were supporting him when he was fighting fundamentalists in Iran. I would like to see him removed, but I am not convinced that 2003 is a better time than 2002, or 2001 or 2000 or 1999 - and we could scroll history backward to the 1980s. Furthermore, his scope is limited; he is a dictator of a failing state. Yet Iraq is caricatured as if it was a superpower that challenges the world. The truth is Saddam's power to exercise an impact is high in his immediate region, non-existent outside. (I acknowledge that Israel is within his range, and that has global implications.)

A pre-emptive US strike strategy against Iraq, without UN endorsement, would almost certainly reinforce the fundamentalist Muslim position ("you can't deal with the US"), uniting fundamentalists and modernizers in a common cause. This would be disastrous!




ttalady answered on 02/25/03:

Ahh... even philosiphy can not answer this one, one the mind and heart of one can! To say it simply, I don't know which is the RIGHT path on this. What I am in support of is war on Iraq. From time to time I get these gut feelings, quite odd, however it is one of those just say it deals. With the attacks on 9/11, before really anything was known other than we were under attack, I blurted out "This is Saddam". Now mind you that Osama was "so-called the cuprit" however my gut that day to this day is that Saddam was in major assistance on this and for payback of Dessert Storm. Hey, the US made a fool of him!

We are in a no win situation. With war we will spark up all Anti-American fundimentalists. No question. With out war these people are controlling us! I have total respect and trust in our government. They do not tell us everything and should not. Pardon my being conservative, but does it not seem that sh** always hits the fan when we go from a Democratic President to a Repubican President? As in who is doing their job and not doing their job?

Twelve years Saddam had time to plan for this. He has been making connections and planning for the next deal that he knew he would spark up! He has laid way to low and being the snake he is, he is wanting to bite.

If we drop this and let this go we are doomed to fall as a country! Not only will we be showing our weakness of supporting our defense but as well showing that America is not United!

This will not be a war. This will be a regime change for Iraq.

tta

chekhovToo rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 02/16/03 - Why would anyone hate America?

Hi All,
My name is not "anyone" so don't worry :) My point is that so many people in the world hate America, why is that? Envy? Envy for what? Richness/standard of living, then wht wouldn't people hate countries like Switzerland and Sweden? Power? What is the meaning of power? I guess Russia (USSR) formerly, has(d) an arsenal as large as that of America and china is in the way. I can't think of any other reason for envy, but I don't think it is a reason for hate.
You may know what is the reason for this hate if you ask any of the millions of people who went to marches and strikes the past few days. I can simply say it is because of American foriegn policy, and its obcession with the power it possesses and not paying any respect to the world. I think these are better reasons, aren't they?

Hussein

ttalady answered on 02/19/03:

Hey, they can kiss my redneck bucky!! Why not. My Grampa #1, the one I heard of in stories, fought in WWI, next Grandpa fought in WWII, the next one died too young to fight working in a metal factory, and my Pops was in Vietnam! You want to know why they hate us huh? The simple fact the heart of an American out ways that of a power of a country! Just a simple Joe Bob dude. We have pride, we have sympathy, and most of all respect.

I am so.... very sick an so.. very disturbed by the lashes our nation gets by ones that depend on us. Germany, France, and China are hoping we fall. They have bets we do, don't ya think. Thank you Clinton for getting a "you know what" instead of taking care of business! Eight years and now others blame Bush, in office one years, for the chaous? Come on, it was started well before and on the finish of Desert Storm.

I gonna tell you right now that sh** is going to happen. Beyond war, Saddam and Osama are buddies, as where Osama let the public know that he will protect Iraq, Saddam kills his own Mulsims, Osama has no case on us, we do not kill our own people!

Peace shall come from the hearts and souls of OPEN MINDED PEOPLE!

tt

hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 02/18/03 - "The image of Santa" and "Santa"

The image of Santa, whatever that is, is referred to by the term, "the image of Santa" it is not referred to by the proper name, "Santa", which, as I have said, and which everyone save small children believe, refers to nothing at all, since, I am sorry to break it to you, but, there ain't no Santa Claus. Just as pictures of unicorns are referred to by the term "picture of a unicorn" but not by the term "unicorn" since there are no unicorns. So there are two terms: "image (concept, etc.) of Santa Claus" and that, of course does refer to something. And, "Santa Claus" which, of course, refers to nothing at all.

ttalady answered on 02/19/03:

Hey, how do you know there are no unicorns, no Santa, maybe no lockness, no BIG foot. The greatest of minds find fun in it. As where it can be 5 below zero and heat myself up by the simple words of a stoned man that said "Open your capilaries". Now knowing that this of blood vessles and to think that it is possible to open them up, well I have never had a cold ice fishing trip! As where the mind does play tricks and could make one believe you are warm, heck I believe in Santa! He is the spirit of my celebrated Christmas. Lockness Monster, I have a feeling he is there, and for the the unicorn, well I always see him/her in my dreams.

To prove it, well why waste such a good thought? To dream and wonder and WANT to prove - or + is the destruction of a mind. Always seek the unknown, you are made for that!

tt

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 02/16/03 - Bush's two sins? - This will be posted in a forum as well.

What does everyone think about Bush using the 9/11 attack as a justification for getting these two unconstitutional empowerments passed:
1. to start any war he wants without congress passing it.
AND
2. Spy on people in his own country.

I don't mind those things if they are used for good, but the country should watch it's own people so that Nixon doesn't happen again.


And for those of you who want to talk about it less seriously, isn't it amazingly similar to Star Wars episode 2 where Palpatine uses a very similar justification to get the republic to turn over power of the military over to him? =)




ttalady answered on 02/19/03:

You know ethical, this is scary but at this point I have faith in him. We are not in Iraq, as in a "Leader for life", and we are not in North Korea "A leader for life". See congress to me is nothing less than putting 150 women together arguing over fashion, hair, clothes, the best TV show. Congress has such a problem with agree to anything that if a President is the majority of the United States, well let him speak.

Thing that gets me is that congress is not so much voted by the "public" as is a Presidential election. Hey, I tried to get my peers out there, but in most cases people vote on the President rather than local government. So in that I do feel that the President is the majority of the the US.

I will admit I am conservative however I have reason for what I have gone to. I believe that in cases of war the bull that has gone thru already is going to hurt us in the end. As in this is 100% divided parties, and countries in the same and believe me, in all it comes down to $$$$. I vote that a President consults and gets feedback, other than that, he calls the ball. Note that people put a man/woman into power, from that is the majority of people.

BTW, lets shake, you are left, me right!

All I ask from the "peace mongers" (he he he "war mongers") is that we support the men and women that are there to fight for America! Whether Iraq, N. Korea, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, ect, these men and women make me proud, being the candy asses we have in this world. These are the BEST OF THE BEST and my heart and soul goes to them!

SIGN ME UP!

tt

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 02/16/03 - Bush's two sins? - This will be posted in a forum as well.

What does everyone think about Bush using the 9/11 attack as a justification for getting these two unconstitutional empowerments passed:
1. to start any war he wants without congress passing it.
AND
2. Spy on people in his own country.

I don't mind those things if they are used for good, but the country should watch it's own people so that Nixon doesn't happen again.


And for those of you who want to talk about it less seriously, isn't it amazingly similar to Star Wars episode 2 where Palpatine uses a very similar justification to get the republic to turn over power of the military over to him? =)




ttalady answered on 02/19/03:

You know ethical, this is scary but at this point I have faith in him. We are not in Iraq, as in a "Leader for life", and we are not in North Korea "A leader for life". See congress to me is nothing less than putting 150 women together arguing over fashion, hair, clothes, the best TV show. Congress has such a problem with agree to anything that if a President is the majority of the United States, well let him speak.

Thing that gets me is that congress is not so much voted by the "public" as is a Presidential election. Hey, I tried to get my peers out there, but in most cases people vote on the President rather than local government. So in that I do feel that the President is the majority of the the US.

I will admit I am conservative however I have reason for what I have gone to. I believe that in cases of war the bull that has gone thru already is going to hurt us in the end. As in this is 100% divided parties, and countries in the same and believe me, in all it comes down to $$$$. I vote that a President consults and gets feedback, other than that, he calls the ball. Note that people put a man/woman into power, from that is the majority of people.

BTW, lets shake, you are left, me right!

All I ask from the "peace mongers" (he he he "war mongers") is that we support the men and women that are there to fight for America! Whether Iraq, N. Korea, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, ect, these men and women make me proud of what candy asses we have in this world. They are the BEST OF THE BEST!

SIGN ME UP!

tt

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 02/10/03 - Thinking

What is thinking?

ttalady answered on 02/12/03:

It is the beauty of humans, animals, well I would say plants but can not prove that.

Thinking is a necessity. It is like water for the body. NO question! The way to let the other necessities of the body to work. MY guess is that you think A LOT and then not finding meaning behind it. As is the physical, emotional, and way mental course it gives one. Call it MORALS, call it INNER PEACE, and at least call it MEANING in your life!!

Hey
tta

chekhovToo rated this answer Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhovToo asked on 02/12/03 - Learning

Do we learn for further understanding, or do we learn to acquire knowledge or a combination of both? And can we reason without knowledge?

ttalady answered on 02/12/03:

For your answer, how do you feel about me? As in what do you think about me? What do you picture me as, what do you think I am, who am I? To prove understanding, knowledge, and fact! Just put in what you think/feel/believe I am!

Hey I love critism, so lets have it and then you will understand your question!

tta

chekhovToo rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
islandangel rated this answer Poor or Incomplete Answer

Question/Answer
Jon1667 asked on 01/27/03 - Proving a negative

I have put this in another form on the philosophy forum. But I think it might also be put as a question.

In connection with the weapons inspections in Iraq some have argued that Iraq is being asked to prove she has no W.M.D.s and, so, is being asked to "prove a negative" which these people claim is impossible. Some even claim that it is a "rule of logic" that "you cannot prove a negative". It seems to me that it is possible, for instance, to prove there is no Santa Claus, (a "negative") in an ordinary meaning of the word "proof" that we all understand. What do you think?

ttalady answered on 01/28/03:

This is kinda like seeing someone do something and saying "You did not just do that did you?". Well I know, as in sarcastic talk however in that comes the answer with Iraq, Santa Claus, no.

In all senses Iraq has no way out of this. In war, yes, by getting rid of Saddam. There is no doubt in my mind they have what we are looking for. The US has known this prior to Bush's Presidential term. So in saying to prove they do not have something that we know they have, that is all to protect the US government as well get the support of the US people. In all to joggle up words to show the truth with out coming out and saying "We already know and have know for years what Saddam has, we are just now doing something about it".

I don't understand why so many focus on what is so-called "said" over what the facts are let alone a little gut feeling. The proof stands in this man. He hates the US, has ties with Osama (as per his own brother-in-law unless just a scare tatic), kills his own people, has killed members of his own family, in all the basic nut case with power. Personally I wish to see him dead as Osama. Why, because even out of power of a country he has power of his own cronies and possible others like Osama that could create way worse than he is now. I have no doubt he would create his own Osama-wanta-be clan non the less join Osama's death trip.

I know off the ball here but in general your question is nothing but political words that do two things for the purpose, 1 being covering up what the government has known for a while and 2 for the people support being Iraq can not prove they are not do for some changing! There is no way Saddam can prove he does not have weapons, even if he does not, it is a given his term is up and that is all the US government wants.

ttalady

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Sepehr asked on 01/12/03 - personal identity

This problem has been bothering me for some time now, so I figured I would seek professional help :) What is the relationship between my current self and my past and future selves? I can think of two possible solutions, both faulty. 1) A person's identity can best be defined as a set of hypothetical situations entailing his reaction to any given circumstance, which is a function of his unique atomic configuration and chemical makeup. This definition coheres with Dictionary.com's definition: The set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group. In this manner, I have to refer to the future selves in third person, because their identities will be different from mine. But at the same time, I know that my future self is of a different relationship to me than just any other third person. One wouldn't work hard to make a better future for oneself as a work of altruism, and one wouldn't volunteer to be medically experimented on thinking that it will be someone else undergoing the procedure and not he. This is the fault I find with referring to my future selves in third person. The other way that occured to me as an answer to this question is that each one of these selves are instances of a higher "Me" and therefore I can refer to them as first person. But this explanation is unscientific; no such higher form physically exists.
So the question remains unanswered: How should I define "identity" to explain my relationship to my past and future selves?

ttalady answered on 01/17/03:

Abstract here but as well makes sense to me? I think. Take the Armore hotdog. Lets say that in ones mind they will create the best hotdog in the world. In the process of making one hotdog they give all the ingrediants that seem to be the ones that will create that of the best. The first run the creator adds too much salt. In tasting might be good to the one but not another. So okay, back to the boards, less salt. Then next run too much fat. Looks great but in cooking for others to experiance it will look too nasty to eat with all the oils. Ok, less fat, less salt, but now we over do the less in everything. We have a dried weiner! Not only bad taste, chews like jerky that has been drying for 20 years, and worst of all the dog knows it!

LMAO! In all everything around you creates you! From looking at our pasts we see what we messed up on or really benefited in to get us to where we stand in this second. For the furture we dread what we see in this second, being most want more! Well the truth is I think every human in life always wants something more. Even in the one person that I could see as having the "perfect" life, this person is still missing something and I would be all the money in the world on it! As where religion comes in that in the end we find everything. From identity to answers of "why".

We are what we eat, learn, experiance, and most of all find peace in. Our bad experiances in the past teach us "Not to go there". In truth I believe that in our bad experiances in the past we learn the most! All too often we overlook what good we have had in the past because the bad is not yet settled. The "If I could go back I would do it different" when there is so... much ahead to make that with out thinking of changing the past, as well impossible unless you invent the time machine! Even so I believe in the plan of ones life. That as every thing in life can be tracked and for told so is the life of one.

Identity to me ='s finding ones self. Just acceptance of what one is. All that one is. The ultimate goal of every person is figuring that out. Our identity is so hidden that if brought out you would know the secrets of life! We would find all of the "why this and why that". Each person's identity grows and grows day by day. As we change and grow with the flowers, trees, world and life. As where I have seen little baby trees that are nothing more than a pencil with a limb grow into the most beautiful tree in the world. That in identity the one thing it had was not giving up on living and that made it the most beautiful thing in the world. Of course attention for us to help it out but in all from a Charlie Brown's baby Christmas tree to the most wonderful thing in the world. It's identity given from care, the will, and knowledge of it's surroundings!

So as the hotdog, we are made. From the day of conception to the day we die everything around us is what makes us. Good/bad, funny/sad, love/hate, ect ect. We are a total product of life!

ttalady

Sepehr rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 01/15/03 - Polemics

I think there is no correct or incorrect argument. An argument appears correct depending on how well it is presented, what do you think?

Hussein

ttalady answered on 01/17/03:

Ahh, is it not wonderful! One mind, one soul, one heart! In argument I like to think of just differences in mind, heart, soul. That in arguments the resolution is never really correct or incorrect, just a resolution let alone comprimise or understanding.

For instance politics. My bestfriend is a Democrat and I a Republican. Well in truth she is Liberal and I Conservative! I always thought that the "names" given to these groups were much like a falseness in just finding what you are closer to in politics. Way off on that. It is almost a religion in itself therefore we have argued our points to each. Both bull headed in our beliefs in this, she feels I am wrong, I feel I am right. Visa versa.

What truly comes out of arguments is learning! As both sides or many sides to an argument have great points. That there is never a correct or incorrect conclusion. One walks away from this with better understanding of an issue. I never believe an arguement is even presented correct to one that does not agree. If it is one that agrees 100% to what it is all about then you have even the presented correct, but in that case there would have never been an arguement!

So in all the beauty is nothing is truly correct or incorrect in an argument! It all lies in what one mind, one soul, and one heart has.

Here's a funny one for you. My bf is so bad on colors, my opinion. He is not color blind but it is one of those men vs female deals. Magenta, he can not understand. It is red to him, the true color to him is red as teal is blue. When I told him I wanted yellow for the new bathroom he was thinking of a lemon. When I showed him the very suble yellow he says it is white. Ahhhh! Now I could prove to him the consistency of the colors however in that he would still stick with his side on the colors from not being perceptive to colors. Magenta is red, not red/purple, teal is blue, not blue/green, and subtle yellow is white, not yellow/white. But the major lesson in this is never trust men with picking up paint when you ask for something beyond the basic color spectrum!! He he he!!!

ttalady

hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 01/07/03 - cultural values

Does race determine identity?
Can one culture be judged superior to another?
Are cultural values morally equivalent?

Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Northern Sudan; is it morally equivalent? In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, women adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves face the punishment of having their hand severed.

Are these cultural values morally equivalent, superior or inferior to Western values?

ttalady answered on 01/10/03:

If only we take this in the simplest of terms. This is human against human. Well as in animal behavior that we have as well apart of being animal. Think of a pack of wolves. Now in the brain capacity they have it does not go on the level humans have however we show in the people world nothing but the same.

Does race determine identity? Yes in all factors. As where a wolf from another pack decides to leave or kicked out of the pack. In joining another the wolf is not just accepted. The pack does not just say "Come join us", it takes begging, being the lowest on low, and just showing the pack he/she is worth the time. Granted in the sense of slavery humans/white man created this, however on taking advantage of a leader that did not want them let alone a profit over them.

Can one culture be superior over another? Again yes, this all has to do with the power of the pack. If the leader falls they are in trouble. As in Alpha male when it comes to a pack of wolves. They are suseptible to being taken over by another pack or wolf alone. Then all rules change in their culture and living. There is also two packs fighting for their domaine. Even in a wolf pack they have their reasons to scope around the other areas that are not home to them. Usually for female, sometimes food. In that they can come in a group or just one that has the cahoneys do do so. Food or female there, they might come back in a force and take out the lower power!

In all the rest, I would be writing a novel on my opinion. We are all just human/animal that is out for what is best for the pack. Not to say that the pack does not make mistakes, the best of hunters in a pack of wolves might just be the one that is sickly and needs time to figure it out. It takes the alpha male to see the big picture to see the life of a pack. To know he/she made the right decisions and with that will show a stronger pack in life. To not have 5 wolves to follow but 20. To keep the chain of a good leader in good followers! As where Mr. Luther King has been a man I celebrate every year, and not even African American. He has brought good blood into this country and as well blood that gave new meaning to life in general!

We are suppose to be different, look different, believe different. The only issue with America is that leadership wise we have no stability with it. No true rules in America, all is available for arguement therefore always in arguement. We have done good in most sense with having the arguements but in the American Flag being a hurtful thing in others views, living on this land, my only words are "Go home then". "I pledge my allegiance to this chaios that brings all cultures together, to stand for my country in good and bad, to know that in my life I have been granted freedoms beyond that of any country, and to know that in life or death my land has done nothing but given me the choice of happiness and success".

ttalady

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
Dark_Crow asked on 01/01/03 - WILLIAM JAMES

More on critical thinking: In WILLIAM JAMES' ESSAY: "THE WILL TO BELIEVE", one of the theses of this paper is that , in the end, we can't really "choose" our beliefs just as we wish. Lots of things, and many of them are not rational, determine whether or not we will believe something.
James says, "As a rule we disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have not uses" Do you believe as a rule is true or false?

James agrees with the skeptics that we can't know things for absolute sure. But, he still thinks that for all serious purposes we can divide beliefs into two categories;

(a) Those which reason does in fact decide. (That 2 + 2 is 4 or that the sun rises in the east.)

(b) Those which it can't. (Virtually every claim for which serious minded people have serious minded disagreements.)

Are their no beliefs about which reason can decide?
Are there no beliefs about which we can know that we know?


ttalady answered on 01/10/03:

WEll DC in both your question as well clarification I think of one very important decision for a woman/girl that I have so.... very pondered over for years. With age I have my belief and reason behind my decision on the issue and in reality I have always thought it just with agruement before with myself when just reasoning.

Subject being abortion. Let me go on this one! At the age of 16 I truely thought abortion was a right to a female. That in belief that it was a female body therefore the female has the right to what the body has in total. Thru my years of seeing and knowing what I now know in belief and reason is that abortion is an excuse/vanity for one to do. As where there are thousands if not hundred of thousands of good parents out there ready to care for a child. In teaching in school pregnancy was shunned. A girl I know was date raped and she had a choice. How she was looked down upon by others for having carried the child as well as she Mothered the child. She had belief and reason in her 100%, reason alone would have give her all to abort let alone give up on herself with her circumstances.

Belief alone gives one the ability to live life. To have that feeling inside of us that there is meaning behind the choices we make, things we think and feel, as well as what the possible path of life can be. Reason would have us argueing all the time on which path to take in life. Never getting no where, standing still with deciding right and wrong!

To say that from my younger years reasoning abortion is wrong to truely believing it. Before making possible situations that abortion was okay. Now seeing even the worst of circumstances no reason to kill a child. Seeing a girl at the age of 15 having been date raped and having a child not in the littlest of bit wanted however she claimed her part in this as well as her belief that in all the bad those seconds it took, she had a life inside of her. Unreal as I think of it now, thank you!

ttalady

Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 01/02/03 - Do you hear me?

An old man realized one day that his old wife was getting hard of hearing. He called her doctor to make an appointment to have her hearing checked. The Doctor said he could see her in two weeks, and meanwhile there's a simple,informal test the husband could do to give the doctor some idea of the dimensions of the problem.

"Here's what you do. Start about 40 feet away from her, and speak
in a normal conversational tone and see if she hears you. If not, go to 30 feet , 20 feet, and so on until you get a response."

So that evening she's in the kitchen cooking dinner, and he's in
the living room, and he says to himself, "I'm about 40 feet away . .
let's see what happens."

"Honey, what's for supper?" No response.
So he moves to the other end of the room, about 30 feet away.
"Honey, what's for supper?" No response. So he moves into the dining room, about 20 feet away. "Honey, what's for supper?" No response. On to the kitchen door, ten feet away. "Honey, what's for supper?" STILL no response.

So he walks right up behind her. "Honey, what's for supper?" The wife
answered with anger:

"For the fifth time, CHICKEN!!!"


My comment:
This is a story that has something to say about the attitudes of some people ;) Give me feedback if you wish.
Hussein

ttalady answered on 01/10/03:

I love it Hank!! "SELECTIVE HEARING" I like to call it. As where one is always wanting to hear what they want to hear but when the answer/statement comes out wrong then it is turned off. Then as well with this could be that everyone believes that others have the issue in life and they are problem free. Well all too often I have felt that too, it is easy to see just the nose on the face and not beyond it!

Brilliant as well as entertaining! Why does it seem that as a woman I can totally relate to this one, must be it's in the genes!! LOL

ttalady

hmghaly rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhov asked on 12/30/02 - Abstract Thought

What is abstract thought and why is it central or indeed a feature of philosophy?

ttalady answered on 12/31/02:

Well I would say because it bring theory into the picture! As where the definition of abstract is:

1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.

2. Not applied or practical; theoretical.

3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.

4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.

As where with out abstract thought we would not have philosophy let alone the desire to study such a thing. As where philosophy derives from people just thinking beyond that of what is presented in black and white. The meaning behind such things and to find the answer most if not all of the time you have to look beyond of what knowledge you have. As why I love the introduction to philosophy some months ago. Definately an adstract thinker here! The black and white stuff is too boring for me!

Jen

chekhov rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
Dark_Crow rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
chekhov asked on 12/29/02 - Critical Thinking

How does one develop the skills in order to become a good critical thinker? Are there any prescribed rules one must follow?

ttalady answered on 12/29/02:

I don't know if anyone hit on this, but works for me, gut feeling! Ahhh all the books you can read apon however the truth of any question comes from inside of you. Yes thru knowledge but to make sense to others as well as yourself (I argue with myself at times) you find the answer that is so clear that it just pokes you in the eye!

To be able to talk things in you mind out is wonderful. Sometimes making the wrong decision yet in thought you figure out how, why, and what to do different. Critical thinking comes from inside of you. It may not be the same or in agreement of another however it is a learning tool. It is all in one mind, one soul, and one breath of thought!

Jen

chekhov rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

Question/Answer
hmghaly asked on 12/29/02 - Ain't it funny?

In Islamic law, there is a prncipal that says: "The evidence is on the one who claims, while oath is on the one who denies (this claim)"
I mean by "on" here: "required from". I think the first part of this principal holds for all laws, as evidence is required to prove someone is guilty or not; however, this oath part ,I think, is no longer applicable anywhere. Anyway, returning back to our charming political issues, I find what happens between US and Iraq quite bizzare. Regardless of what Iraq has done before, and how bad Saddam is and all this, I see that the situation is clearly reversed. America is the one making the claim, so it has to present its evidence to support this claim; but not Iraq. Some people put it in such a way that Iraq "claims" that it has no mass-destruction weapons, and hence began to argue about the possibility of proving a negative, which made things appear somehow meaningless (to me at least). The initial claim comes from America, and it has to support it with actual facts, not with talks about intentions and so. Only (a) God know what everybody's intentions are, regardless of your belielfs!

Hussein

ttalady answered on 12/29/02:

Ghlay-

The truth comes in your own words! Evidence, appearance, and actual facts! Find it! Fact is that Saddam is a bad man, leader, human. He is none the less Hitler in the new century. The US screwed up by helping him into power however with the messed up leaders we have in the US we have been blinded to fix it so soon. War heads, blah blah blah! The Us will never have proof of this, being Saddam is such a good hider, advocate of evil, ect. The proof stands that this man controls a country that begs for release. In benefit to the US I am sure however in all my whole support comes from what I do know in what they are dealing with in a leader. I did complain with Dark crows question of Democracy however what a gift it is to do so! As where in Iraq they would be shot if ever saying what they know and feel!

A question I ask in this Islamic principal "The evidence is on the one who claims, while oath is on the one who denies (this claim)" is that is this is true why so many followers of Osama? He said he did it however it surpasses the life of Americans somehow? Oh yes, we are the infidel, but are we? Are we not the ones that give and give and give. I fear, not hate, Muslims for the sake that they have never spoken for America. I fear we are in a dilema of groups that are beyond what we can comprehend! A messed up Muslim belief has made me as just a person suspetible to the worst of life. Not Muslim belief as it is but one and many that took such a good belief and turned it into that of evil?

Islamic law turns Osama into that of what ever evil there is in that religion. To target innocent lives over that of the one that is the issue! Saddam is the issue, not the people of Iraq and you watch. The US will not take Saddam out, his own people will! We will just help out with the support they need to do so in the way they are living!

Jen


hmghaly rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
picassocat24 asked on 12/04/02 - Nature of Evil

Is evil due to lack of knowledge?

ttalady answered on 12/06/02:

I almost think evil is due to too much knowledge. Example is that of science. The bombs we create to the newest hairspray that demolishes the Ozone! Evil comes from vanity of one. What one will do to make ones life easier. The selfish things that work. Knowledge has taught us against what evil creates. It is really a no win situation. We go thru the experiances, then learn, however with vanity we un-learn so fast.

Abortions are that of evil. It is a medical discovery to be able to do so for the vanity of a woman that screwed up. But killing a life for vanity. The knowledge in abortion is that whether a person yet or not in the belly, it is a living thing much like a seed growing in the ground.

Knowledge is far from the culprit, it is the ones that do not want to know, they just want to go on selfish thoughts of life. For instance, I wonder often of the leaders of the world. From Japan to England, from America to Iraq, I wonder how they feel sitting in their cozzy homes at Christmas having a wonderful meal, tons of presents, let alone heat. What do they feel like I that there are people out there on the streets freezing their butts off and hungery. Do they even think of that? No, it is passed on to the common public to care, they are just speakers of what they do not care about. If not so then those people would not live as they do, they would give up vanity for the love of others.

I respect just one man when it comes to this subject and that is my father. Our family came into some big money years ago and he could have done the "smart" thing and hoarded it. He shared it even from the knowledge that being paycheck to paycheck is not fun at all. We lived nicely for some years but as well did a lot of charity. We had a Fresh Air girl come for the summer with us. An African American girl that had never seen hills, a lake, a boat, have someone braid her hair. How I was jealous from the knowledge of being the pampered girl but came to learn the importance of life. Being a hick girl myself knowledge would have told me that "blacks" are dirty but being knowledgable from my father's teaching "blacks" have the same colored blood we do. We are no different as well as just people. The illusion of white never overtook me with this girl. She was just another girl with a hard life that I was jealous because I was not #1. How I wish to find her now and just know she is ok!

So anyway, knowledge evil? No way, it is vanity that takes evil every time!

ttalady

picassocat24 rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer
babthrower rated this answer Average Answer

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 10/23/02 - to ttlady

Yep, that debate was ok. It was mostly ignored though. And Doc went crazy at the end of it. This site wont let me respond in any forum except here. I cant hit reply to the last message you wrote. Strange eh?

ttalady answered on 10/23/02:

I believe this is a brandy new site. Well hope so! I did not see any postings on your debate except the first one and I did reply that you were 50/50 in my eyes. No winners that was with my opinion!

They said when I asked a question, that the email response that you recieved an answer was not yet up and running so my guess is that this is totally new. Beyond the fact most of the boards have absolutly no one as experts let alone asking questions. We can give it time though!!

I hope it is new, if not boy how boring life will be, LOL! It is so.. good to see the names though. Jon1667, you, rosends, Gguru, the others I do not recongnize. Hey as long as Khoral does not show up I will be SO... HAPPY! He/she can go back to chatting.

Keep in touch and start something here!!

ttalady

Question/Answer
ethical_reason asked on 10/23/02 -

To see who else is out there.

ttalady answered on 10/23/02:

I sure hope this is going to be worth the time!! He he he. Where is Hank? Seeing friendly names here!! Whats up ethical? What ever happened to the big debate anyway?

ethical_reason rated this answer Excellent or Above Average Answer

exper   © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.   Make Us Your Homepage
. Bookmark Answerway.