Ten oz

@ Woldhnd, other political systemsmplayed themselves out in Europe. Monarchs collasped as they became too thinly spread. Colonization proved unsustainable and empires failed under their one weight. Democracy didn't just thrive thanks to science because the people were more educated. Democracy was turned to by many out of war fatigue and economic doom. Millions died in war, millions died slaves, and millions died from plague before Europe turned the corner.

There is real only two options: Alpha - random chemical reactions started life Bravo - life has always existed and has no beginning While option Alpha has yet to be entirely duplicated in a lab it is theoretically more likely than option Bravo which can not truly be tested or expiremented. We can see the way life has evolved. We know that different chemicals under conditions that can occur naturally will create amino acids and proteins. Option Bravo says that some more advanced more intelligent life that is free of origin has always existed, always had knowledge, and created all other life. Option Bravo also fudges the idea that the universe has a beginning by theorizing an life form that by virtue of being infinite predates the finite Universe. Assuming one believes that life has any origin at all option Alpha is the only choice regardless of how little its understood or observed. Option Bravo does not explain how life was created. Rather option Bravo claims life was never created. Life just is.

The math is very important. How else can you show us your theory? All matter is made of energy. The amount of energy/force you are describing to be used to "launch" a probe would also destory that probe and turn its matter back into energy. In other words; the probe would go boom! You are made of atoms. Those atoms move. You should study up on that.

Personally I focus on what I know. What I understand. I don't know for sure about the Big Bang. Time before time and all that is too abstract for me. Too intangible. Focusing on such things inevitably leads to speculation. I don't have the education to work out the specifics of time, gravity, mass, speed, and all that. Doesn't mean perhaps it is god. Just means I don't know. No different than not knowing what a stranger is thinking when I pass them on the street. What I do know and understand is evolution. I do know that women were not made from the rib of man. That humans were not created complete in there current form. Knowing that alone debunks 99% of most religions. I know why the sun rises and sets and where birds fly off to in the winter. The world can be entirely explained without a God. Viewing the start of time and the universe as a sticking point for the possibility of God is a zero sum game. There will always be "what came before that". You will never know everything. Setting the bar at everything is futile. I know enough and understand enough that adding a god into the equation does not help. The concept of a God in my opinion only complicates natural processes as I understand them because it adds motive and non random oversight to them that doesn't appear to exist. In sort what I am saying is let questions exists without feeling the need to plug with conjecture. If you don't know something than that is what it is. Not knowing information doesn't lend itself to a specific outcome. A person should use what they do know and what they do understand as their guide.

In the other thread a case was made. Perhaps you disagree but it wasn't empty name calling. The thread was based on a book which posed the theory and supported it research. Posters added their two cents commenting on the rationality of various conservative dogmas. I don't see what the problem is? Here in this thread the same has yet to be done. No one has listed behaviors or dogmas held by "liberals" which could be considered crazy or are provably incorrect.

Considering the history and their access to information understanding that America, Israel, and Russia are not the enemy is very difficult. Millions of civilians have died at the hands of Russia and the United States in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq over the last 30 or so years. Tens of millions have been displaced and moved to Pakistan, Iran, and Syria as refugees fleeing those conflicts. in Europe and North America civilian deaths are less than 10,000 and we are condemning the whole region. Imagine how they feel when ten of millions have had civilian family members killed, seen their homes destroyed, and have been forced to hike whats left into some other country for shelter. These people aren't waking up and comfortably drinking coffee while reading the Wall Street Journal or New York Time. Many don't understand why the Russians were killing or why America was dropping bombs. In Afghanistan 60% of the population doesn't even have electricity. Here in the United States where I live we enjoy an Internet usage of 84 people per one hundred. In Afghanistan it is 5 people per 100, Iraq is 9 people per 100, in Pakistan it 10 per 100, and etc, etc, etc. Many simple have no access to information. Mix that with seeing death and destruction their whole lives. There politics/religious beliefs should not be surprising. In many ways it is the classic cyclical case of the abused growing up to be the abuser.

No doubt. I don't disagree with that. I did not mean to imply the criticism is without merit. However posters (not you) are going so far as to imply nuclear weapons should be used. To that I say all the many complaints are being overstated. The Middle East has problems but not to the point of justifying an unlimited response. It is not like a zombie movie where Muslims just wonder the streets in wait of any innocent Christian to kill and posthumously convert. The degree of general violence, hatred, and overall intolerance is comically exaggerated if it is believed to rise to the level of a nuclear response. Surely the millions of their lives that have been lost as collateral damage battling the radicals amongst them is much a tragedy as the thousands killed in the West by those same radicals? I am not willing to right off entire generation to be incinerated based in part on an over evaluation of their intolerance amongst other things.

@ Tar, thank you for an excellent response. You highlighted how complicated these affairs are. Unfortunately for Syria and its people Assad may currently be the better of a variety of competing evils. What I do not know, not sure my government knows, is how or allies in the region honestly feel about Assad. What would the Saudias, Jordians, and so on like to see happen in Syria and is that answer acceptable to the West? I am not implying the West does nothing. Rather, they assist logistically and perhaps financially rather than militarily. Rather than pushing in to fullfill an obligation for having encouraged uprising perhaps we should have not encouraged uprising? While it is without question many regimens in the Middle East are oppressive to their people direct government to government communication might be preferable to expensive underground moments to undermine? Capitalism has proven to be a strong and straight forward motivator in places like UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar. They are improving their human rights record by the year not to combat Arab springs but rather to attract tourism and grow their economies. Democracy alone is not a cure. India is the largest democracy in the world and yet in large reigons they still battle with indentured servitude, mistreatment of women, incredible amounts of poverty, and etc. The fact that their government is mor acceptable to the west is little comfort to India's millions of impoverished. Which is one of the reasons many Indians leave home and move to kingdoms like Qatar and Bahrain looking for work. In effect giving up democracy for monarchy. While Democracy is philosophically a superior system of government to a monarchy it is not a basic human need. People need security, food, and homes first and foremost. In a region like the Middle East where security has been non existent, food scarce in many areas, and millions of home destroyed I think pushing for democracy is premature. If able to vote many would just elect to kill each other at this point. Btw, I am a huge fan of India and wish my country had a boarder relationship with them. In no way was I disparaging India in my comments.

Many thoughts and feelings people hold are motivatived by things other than tangible facts. Everyone has preferences based on their cultural upbringing, biases, fears, confidence levels, education, etc, etc. I see nothing wrong with having a discussion about the various motivations or causes for belief between competing political views. Nothing wrong with point out things that narcissistic, sociopathic, or insane. Just as religious people immaturely argue that their supernatural beliefs should be respected out of tradition or equal rights it is just as silly to insist ones political beliefs are beyond examination. Is liberalism a mild form of insanity? Since the creator to this thread asked the question without making any case one way or another I assume a simple no will suffice?

Now that Jordan is all in I hope we (western powers) allow ISIS to be handled regionally. Outside intervention has not shown to quiet radicalism in the past. If this becomes a fight between various competing Muslim monarchs I think that will be better for the rest of the world. Pushing back against the foriegn non-Muslim superpowers from the west is the best bit of recruiting groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda have. Take that away and I think these groups lose a lot of steam.

My point is that you are making very board remarks and generalizing the entire region incorrectly. Your comments starts by calling the whole Middle East "poor, backward, and intolerant" and then you proceed to list Western society traits you'd like to see adopted. There is nothing "poor" or "backwards" about the opulent western allies in the Middle East I listed. As for intolerance that varies significantly from country to country. In the UAE women have more protections and freedom than in Afghanistan for examples. And many of the wealthy countries are changing their ways in response to capitalistic pressure. Rather than just labeling all of them as poor, backwards, and intolerant I think it is important to acknowledge allies vs foes, progress vs worsening states, and etc. While the countries in the Middle East have majority Muslim populations the region is no more a singular place that can be lumped all together than are the majority Christian Americas. Does or should every country in the todays world be a democracy? Isn't trying to make the whole world in their example one of the historical failures of world powers? Is it possible for a place like Qatar to stay a monarchy while at the same time continue to improve their record on human rights? Can their be peace and equality without a complete cultural bowing to modern western values? The religious intolerance of the Middle East in general is a bit over stated in my opinion. There are more Christians living in the Middle East than there are Muslims living in all the Americas for example. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/19/middle-easts-christian-population-in-flux-as-pope-francis-visits-holy-land/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/worlds-muslim-population-more-widespread-than-you-might-think/

When you say the Middle East who specifically are you referencing? Because many countries in the Middle East do not fit your description of "poor and backward". Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Bahrian, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc are wealthy nations that have a close relationships with Western Countries. In your opinion did those countries adopted "Westernized Islam, atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, Nordic Paganism"?As for the constant war part is it only a plague if it is happening inside your own boarders? Because in my country (United States) we fight in a lot of Wars. Sometimes a couple wars at once while campaigning politically to get into some others. So while I agree that certian countries in the Middle East have serious problems that must be addressed I don't feel you have thus far properly outlined who those players are. You also haven't provided a real solution of any sorts. Just board generalizations of the whole region that actually only fit a handful of places. Segregation in the South States did not happen until the 1960's. There are plenty of people alive today that grew up during a time when people were forced to sit separately at restaurants, use different bathrooms, attend different schools, weren't allowed to wed, and etc interiorly based on skin color. Anyone over the age of around 55yrs old lived during those days. Even more resently Apartheid in South Africa just ended in the late 80's. A person living in a Westernized country doesn't need to be in triple digits to have lived through major change.

I agree but think it is more than a hangover. People are still getting drunk. People use success and intelligence interchangeably. On top of that money is normally used as success' messuring stick. Yet money is something that is often inherited and our free market system does not ensure everyone an equal place. So prevassive is this notion that people with money are more intelligent that people who aren't viewed as intelligent but have money are regularly criticized as being unworthy of their wealth. For example criticism of athletes as over paid is very common while the critism of multimillionaire hedge fund managers is not. In college sports athletes are not paid at all even while generating billions in revenue. The attitude is that they should be happy just getting to go to school. The chance to be intelligent is weighed as far more meaningful than the fortunes they generate. Meanwhile coaches are paid great salaries. Athletic success is often attributed to luck, god given ability, or genes. Of course it is no coincidence that many of the most highly criticized athletes are minorities. So in a world where there are still huge differences in standards of living around the world this adquating of intelligence, success, and money continues to stoke the idea that different races of people are inferior.

The top 10% owns 80% of the stock market. The choices the top 10% make move the market. They are in he drivers seat. If the bottom 90% put their retirement accounts in the market they are handing it to the top 10% to control. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html It creates a situation where the bottom 90% fortunes rely on keeping the top 10% increasingly successful. Not just that but when markets fall during recessions it forces everyone who was planning on retiring to shift those plan to the right until the market recovers.

Skins ability to darken, or tan, hair color, eye color, and etc are determined by genes that have nothing to do with brain function. The question asked in this thread is akin to wonder if yellow labrador retrievers behave differently than black labrador retrievers. It is a superficial difference and at the end of the day a Labrador is a Labrador. Genetically humans are 99.9 similar. When animals are this close we consider them the same. Race is highly subjective concept that only seems to apply to us humans. Unless there is some science that reflects pigmitation impacts brain function the answer to the question is no.

Tactics tend to be reactive. Even at that slowly reactive. The American War for independence is another example. One side gathered in single file while the other side hid behind cover. Military thinking; strict devotion to order and disipline doesn't lend itself to improvisation the more loosely organized insurgencies and rebellions do.

Arrogance, greed, and corporatocracy over democracy. In the build up to the wars it was pointed out by many people that traditional boarder wars would not successfully defeat terror and that within the countries themselves woul have a destabilizing impact. That was ignored in part because of arrogance. The counter argument was that the United States could succeed where other had failed because our military was superior. Our satellites could target anyone, our smart bombs could kill without collateral damage, and the enemy would be shocked and awed. Greed was a major motivator as well. Two parts; firstly Bush's strong response was politically successful. In 2004 in the midst of the wars Bush won re-election. Only popular vote win Republicans have had in the last 6 straight presidential elections. Bush had lost the popular vote in 00'. Bush cut taxes, gave corporations huge give aways, and cut in to people's rights while campaigning as a "War President". When his policies were criticized that criticism was repudiated by reminding everyone that the country was at war and critism was not appropriate. Secondly the war made lots of people money. Not merely the obvious players like Government contractors. The build up also meant a windfall of money was sent to local police departments to gear up and local military bases to fortify. If you are a Congressman or Senator you want that flow of cash in your district. Maybe as a Senator you're on the fence about the war but sure could use the boost to local jobs that a few Navy contracts provide. From 03' to about 06' war worked well for the establishment. Then of course there is the corporatocracy. Political officials who move between holding government jobs and seats on corporate boards. Was Dick Cheney more motivated to help the United States or Haliburton? Are people in that position (and many are) able to exerciser good judgement? Those things plus the history of lag in the evolution military response Delta1212 has pointed out is what happened. I don't believe where we are today was the intended outcome. Errors were made by people in office.

You believe elements of the U.S. and British governments wanted a bigger more influential terror network? Or are you just referencing military industrial complex spending? I apologizes for all the typing mistakes. I have trouble using the mobile site with my phone.

I would said we have influenced their behavior. If we "controlled" their behavior we would have moat desirable outcomes.

When is a tough stance tough enough? The debate often seems centered around how much tougher should we be. Over the last decade plus we have been pretty darn tough: "The ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have taken a tremendous toll on the people of those countries. At the very least, 174,000 civilians have been determined to have died violent deaths as a result of the war as of April 2014. The actual number of deaths, direct and indirect, as a result of the wars are many times higher than this figure." http://costsofwar.org/article/civilians-killed-and-wounded Islamic terrorism has increased during the past decade. If the purpose of the global war on terror was/is to eradicate Islamic Terror the campaign isn't succesful. The opposite is happening. That is not meant to place blame but rather it is an honest assessment. We made plans, assessed goals, and went to action. The outcome has not been what we hoped. In a scientific expirement one would learn from that and create a new experiment rather than just continuing down the same route. Islamic terrorist are dangerous, cruel, evil, and every other terrible thing. However we don't control their behavior. We only control our own. So in seeking a solution we should focus on what we can be responsible for, our actions.

Sam Harris is smart and I believe motivated by what he honestly believes. However I don't agree with him. A lot of religions or even devoted social beliefs can become extreme and dangerous. If the roles were reversed and Islamic countries dominated the economic and military strength of the world I believe some Christians would be far more extreme. Islam itself isn't the problem. If all the same players prayed to Apollo I think we would still have the same problem. Just as many Christians feel Christmas is under attack when they aren't allow nativity scenes anywhere and everywhere religious people in general are easily slightly, easily angered. Religion tends to be all or nothing. At the moment Islam seems the most extreme but Christians run the show. Christian have nothing to blow themselves up about at the moment. History shows that just about any religion can be exceedingly violent. Not merely religion but all social devotions. In the United States for example people have both exhibited and openly expressed a willingness to KILL over gun rights and abortion. we have seen abortion clinics bombed and all heard the pro gun slogan "from my cold dead hand". A couple changes in the law and otherwise law abiding citizens would become extremists and kill. By there own words they would yet debating those social issues never center around the pending extremism of those people. That would only flame the fire. Can't call all gun owners extreme just because some of them blog about a new civil war and stock pile weapons like a squirrel collects nuts for the winter. Can't call all right to lifers religious extremist just because some of them murder doctors. It simply isn't helpful to the conversation. At the end of the day, at least in my country (USA), more people will died from mass school shootings that from Islamic terrorist last year. Most people died from drug gang wars on the streets than from Islamic terrorism last year. More people overdosed and died from prescription drugs than from Islamic terrorism last year. What we choose to shine a light on matters. Islamic terrorism is terrible and like most all religion I think Islam is stupid. However I think we give it more attention than it deserves and that attention helps drives the extremist.

I had a rather disturbing dream last night. I was part of a group of various professionals meeting with the Director of the CIA. There was about 20 of us and we all met up in the lobby of a large building. The CIA Director was the center of attention. We all followed him up to the 81st floor. Once there we entered a board room. An older gentleman was already seated at the head of the table. Once we all took our seats it was obvious that the man at the head of the table was who we were all there to see, not the CIA Director. The Man at the head of the table announce to us that it was time to know the truth and then a large wooden cabinet against the wall slowly opened. A metal circular disk pitched vertically decorated with spirals of gold and opal slide forward and began to glow. From it a voice began to tell us about the future. When wars would begin, countries would collaspe, and etc. The vioce was not spiritual. Gods and demons do not come to mind. However it was extremely insidious and hypnotizing one by one everyone in the room fell asleep including myself. When we awoke the disc was back in the woodened cabinet (presumably) and we all left without talking. Their was a heavy feeling of dread. In the dream my wife and I were staying in the building while on a trip of some sort. So when I left the room I went down to the 63rd floor where we (my wife and I) had a suite. When I walk into the suite my wife was in the bedroom asleep a one of the men from the event upstairs was sitting alone infront of a wall sized window in the dark. The only light in the room came via the skyline out the window. He told me that he couldn't live with what we had learned. He pulled out a gun and held to to his head. Unable to shoot himself he pulled the gun away from his head and began firing into the ceiling. Then he dropped the gun and throw himself out the window leaving a man sized whole in the glass. I immediately woke up my wife and told her what had happened and that we must call the police. She advised against calling the police and told me to go to bed. I argued but she insisted that we do nothing. So I went to the bathroom to wash my face and think in private. Once in the bathroom it accord to me that I might be dreaming. I desperately wanted it to be a dream and began thinking of a way to wake myself up........then I woke up. End of dream!

I do not doubt that one bit. It is a buyers market for oil right now and a lot of people will make a lot of money next year but I don't personally feel comfortable with it. I bought in when the market was even lower. I have made money so I am not losing anything.

So after some consideration and research I have found serval companies I would like to invest in that have business models that I can feel good about. I will begin the process of selling off shares in companies which I view as having a negative impact and moving that money elsewhere. Whie there is nothing wrong in a formal or legal sense with any of my investments at the end of the day I do not feel comfortable benefiting from things that a bad. For example the death of the King of Saudi Arabia yesterday pushed a couple of the oil companies I have money in up. The death of a leader and the temporary instability that creates made me money. That doesn't seem right to me. So I with move my money elsewhere.

Considering the variety of information presented throughout this thread from discrimination against ethnic names on resumes to searches performed during vehicle stops it is rather apparent that bias exists. All the other side of this debate does is question and challange. No data indicating non bias. Just arguments against the relevance of what is presented by other. What "if" used as though it shares equal weight with what "is".