bombus

bombus any evidence to say that anti-western elements in IRan came after Iran was trying to become like us? the shah tried to westernise the country and was eventually overthrown, if you want to overthrow a pro-western leader; blaming the west for everything isn't a bad idea.

Look, you can find this stuff out for yourself you know! The Shah was put in place by the CIA after Mossadegh was ousted in Operation Ajax. Mossadegh wanted to modernize the county but was a bit too left wing for the West.

It's also not that hard to create anti-western sentiment using anti-semetic arguments such as "why do they have all the money, they must be taking advantage" "they use their wealth to keep power" etc.

What's anti semetism got to do with it? Iran is opposed too the Isreali state, not Jews (the Isreali state being occupied Palestine to many in the middle east). Anyway, Arabs are Semites too.

As for nationalization, it may have originally been Iranian oil, but british companies payed for the rights to use the fields, they built infrastructure and carried out all of the tasks required t start exporting oil. Ad then the Iranians took the fields back.

Yeah, and I'm like really sure the Iranians were given a fair deal!!

This is similar to selling the farming right to your lands, allowing the person you sold the rights too to care for the crops until just before they are supposed to be harvested. And then kicking the farmers off your land and then selling the crops that they grew.

No it's not. Its more like being told that by selling your rights to land you'll be better off, and then realising how much you have been ripped off. I am sure the Iranians had little say in it anyway.

Probably everything else you do in your lifestyle ruins habitats much more than eating meat.

Maybe so, but we were talking about vegetarianism. However, the farming of Soya and crops tends to use high doses of pesticides, fertilizers, and increasingly GM, and involves the felling of rainforests - so you can't escape just by being a veggie!

I think a lot of people are so worried about killing animals using animals for fur and eating animals. But really this is the best thing for them given our nature. because eventually the only animals left will be those that produce profit, or things like rats and seagulls and pigeons that can live in cities off of us humans. Sure that would mean all animals would be in captivity but captivity is better than extinct and extinct is what they will become if there is no money in having them exist and money in taking away what they need to survive. So save the animals and wear fur.

An interesting POV. I should disagree being a conservationist, but alas you are probably right!

the A-Team anyday!

Except they never actually kill anyone!

I don't understand what this belief of yours has to do with whether or not Freudian psychoanalysis is valid or not. If someone has a broken arm one doesn't call a witch doctor and if someone has a physical deficiency in the brain many would not waste time calling in a Freudian analysist.

 

Even if someone has a non-physical psychological issue most health care providers today would still not call in a Freudian analysis but would try other approaches to help the patient. Few would be obsessed with the complexities of the patient's buried repressed subconscious sexual relationship with their parents Instead they might try stress relief, coping skills, etc. Freud would be out of the picture.

Yes, I'd agree. While Freud's general theories may have been correct in many ways, it's not really that readily applicable to most psychological problems. Also, I would reckon that most psychological problems that people encounter do not stem from such 'deep' psychology, and have occured 'further up' the 'psychological ladder'.

Yours or ours?

 

I'd hate to be against either. If I was against both, well, allow me to introduce the first place getter in the "How fast can you Surrender?" competition.

Well, as they are both Her Majesties Armed Forces, I'd rate 'em equally:-)

If it's so wrong for humans to kill and eat animals, then why is it not wrong for animals to eat other animals. If it's so wrong then why aren't we stopping animals from eating other animals by separating them or whatnot. Some people might say "well that's just nature, that's how animals are." If that's so, then my eating a hamburger should be considered nature......Just an idea.

There are many reasons why people are vegetarian. Some just don't like meat, some don't like farming practices as it is often cruel, some don't like to kill animals, some will only eat meat if they kill it/find it themselves etc.

For those that don't like to kill animals the issue is often personal, and is basically "if I don't need to eat animals to survive then I will not eat them". Non-human animals do not have a choice, and furthermore, have no opinions on the rights and wrongs of killing animals to eat.

You're hamburger idea is fine, but does not take into account the cruelty and habitat destruction that can often be involved in producing that hamburger. I usually only eat free-range 'ethically farmed' meat for this reason and also don't actually eat meat that often.

Many plants have benefited by evolving to cope and even thrive by being eaten. This is why fruits are nice to eat - the seeds are spread by animals that eat them. Grass can cope with being grazed as it grows from the bottom, and in grazed habitats dominates (e.g the North American plains and the Savannahs).

An interesting point is that in biomass terms perhaps the most successful organism on the planet is wheat. It's so successful that it even pushes mankind out of huge areas of the planet! Also, in biomass terms there is more cow on the planet than human. By being good to eat a symbiotic relationship with man has developed which has made cows very successful organisms.

bombus,

 

You may or may not be correct. Are you able to give clear cut examples to prove your point?

OK.

The following species have become extinct in Wales primarily due to habitat loss (although once depleted hunting may have had an impact in some cases)

Wolf

Brown Bear

Wild Boar

Corncrake

lynx

I could go on and on about species currently threatened by habitat loss in the UK e.g. lapwing, barn owl, water vole, dormouse, silver studded blue butterflys, sandhill rustic moth, there are hundreds!

Now most of these species are still present somewhere on Earth, but if habitat loss occured everywhere they could go globally extinct - and this is now their greatest threat.

The Panda is only still around because massive conservation effort saved their habitat and put breeding programmes into action - else it would have gone by now. The same could be said for Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orang-utans, and soooo many more.

It is true that hunting can wipe out a species e.g. the passenger pigeon, dodo, beaver from most European countries, certain whale species etc, and more known species have gone extinct from Earth as a result of hunting by man, but nowadays, the biggest threat is habitat loss - which I suppose could also include the effects of non-native introduced species.

Once a habitat is lost, how can a species designed to live in that habitat possibly survive?

And here again you're pinning all the blame on "us". It has helped result in the Iran we have today.

Well, to me that's a bit like saying that me punching you helped the result of you punching me back. Technically kinda correct, but c'mon!

The key word here is "guess." I'm not sure how such guesses are helpful.

 

I'm tempted to stipulate that the entire world's problems are entirely the fault of the United States just so we can start talking about solutions.

Well substitute 'West' for United States and you're probably right!!

What I dispute is your insistence that we remove any and all responsibility for Iran's actions from... Iran.

I don't, but the point I am trying to make is that the West started it!

When I pointed this out to you, instead of agreeing with me that they also share responsibility for their actions, you instead accused me of being ignorant of Iranian history. Now do you see what that approach is a mistake? Had you instead agreed with me that they share responsibility for their actions, then we would have agreed on at least that one point. Completely.

Like I said, I think we (I) was getting wires crossed. Of course Iran as a sovereign nation has responsibility for its own actions, but it's hostile stance to begin with is our fault. That's what I'm trying to point out.

Do you think Britain and the USSR should not have invaded Iran in 1941?

That's not an easy question to answer. Reza's overt support of Hitler, and his (lets face it) fascistic tendencies made him a target, but he was not that well supported by the Iranian people, having siezed control of Shah Soltan Ahmad's guards and arrested the entire Cabinet! Now I don't know how much of a threat he actually was, but certainly with supplies of oil to Nazi Germany halted the war was shortened. So I would say it was probably justified. Had he not overtly supported Hitler, and had like Franco (another Fascist dictator who was in power in Spain until the late seventies!), made an effort to stay well away from Hitler, then I would have said no.

Further, how can we know what would have happened had Iran not nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP)?

I think Iran had every right to nationalize their own oil. It was theirs but the West was making all the money from it. Here lies the beginning of all our trouble! We never forgave Iran for this act.

Had British and US intelligence agencies not supported the Shaw, would the Shaw have deposed Mossadegh anyway?

I would say, almost definitely not.

Would Islamic rule have come without regard to any of this?

Iran would be more like Turkey or Tunisia IMHO

I frankly have no idea; therefore, cannot generally say that the West meddlings backfired.

Well, fair enough, but we can probably hazard a pretty good guess methinks...

you could also say that certain power hungry groups in Iran used the west as a scape goat for all of Iran's problems and are currently maintaining their own power through the illusion that they are taking action against the west.

And you might be right, but it worked and one has to ask why was the ground so fertile?

The situation with Nazi Germany was different. Anti semitism was already rife throughout Europe (and still is in many parts), whereas until the West interfered with Iran they were trying to become like us, and were not anti-western.

To answer all of you I will give you an example of what I mean.

The 'English' have been meddling in the affairs of Ireland since the Middle Ages and on the whole have treated the common Irish people badly. All this plus more recent 20th Century events resulted in the formation of the IRA.

Now the cause of the IRA may have been acceptable, but in my opinion their actions were not. The IRA committed terrible acts against more-or-less innocent people.

Now, I cannot 'excuse' the IRA for their actions just because they were 'provoked' , but it is still clear that if the British had not been so brutal to the Irish catholics and repulicans the IRA would never have formed. The brutal acts of the IRA caused the British government to behave brutally, and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Loyalist Paramilitaries, but still, if the British had not behaved like they did in the first place the IRA would not have existed.

Peace has only arisen in Ulster since the two sides have started talking in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Now to say that Iran has been provoked into their position does not excuse them of their actions (although much of those are probably propaganda), but to deny that the west provoked Iran seems absurd.

Strange /= mystical. It's still just physical laws, just not the ones we expected to find before we knew about them. It's unfortunately quite common for people to take the "weirdness" of QM and the fact that we don't completely understand it yet as license to project whatever mystical mumbojumbo they want onto it. Like all the people who think that QM holds the secret to free will. "We don't completely understand QM. We don't completely understand how consciousness works. Both use words like 'observer.' Both involve unpredictability...... JACKPOT!"

I agree with you about mystical mumbojumbo, there is too much pseudoscience around, but WHY do both consciousness and quantum theory involve those terms so intrinsically? I can ..er..feel (?) a connection between the two. It kinda makes sense that they are linked. In fact I can imagine the next great step in Physics coming out of the study of consciousness, because, of course, it's where 'we' actually interface with reality, which is what Physics attempts to explain. I think linkage of the two subjects is actually inevitable.

I'm warning you again not to go there. If you do you'll lose for three reasons -- first because you're wrong about me, and second because it's logically ridiculous to state that sufficient knowledge will automatically lead anyone to the "correct" conclusion (yours).

 

It's also insulting as hell, which of course brings me to the third reason -- it's against board rules regarding persistent use of straw men (in this case an obvious association fallacy).

 

I don't mean to end an otherwise pleasant disagreement on a sour note, but like I said, don't go there. Please take note.

Maybe we are getting our wires crossed. I think it is indisputable that the West meddled with the internal affairs of Iran throughout the 20th Century and to deny this would mean ignorance of the facts.

I also think it hard to dispute that our meddlings have resulted in the stance Iran now have against the West. That is not to say the Iranian leadership is 'correct'. I am merely saying that our interference backfired and has resulted in the Iran we have today, and all the problems we now face.

I'd be genuinely interested in knowing which bits you disagree with.

No, I'm not suggesting he's correct. "Observation" just means having some effect on something other than itself. It has nothing to do with consciousness. The terminology, "observation" and "travelling information" and such, can be confusing in that regard, but there are good reasons for using those terms.

 

What's new in quantum physics is not some mystical interaction between matter and consciousness. Here is basically the deal. In classical physics, take the example of a planet orbiting a star. It's assumed that you can know the exact position, velocity, and various forces acting on the planet, and thereby extrapolate these values for a future point in time. However, all of this depends on the assumption that you know those initial values, and how that information arrives at you (presumably, via photons from the star bouncing off the planet and some of them entering the lens of a telescope, etc.) doesn't affect that information in any significant way, and so the process is ignored. However, when looking at something like an electron, the form of the "information" that tells you about it becomes extremely important, because, just like with the planet, it involves bouncing stuff off of it and seeing where the bouncing stuff ends up. But the "bounce," unlike with the planet, has a large effect on the object of study in an unpredictable way, due to the manner in which such things travel (a particular sort of "particle-like" wave function whose "position" and "velocity" are ranges of values with inversely proportional precision) which causes just as much inexactitude in both object and "bouncer."

Quantum wierdness is more than that though isn't it. You can't measure the exact velocity and position of a moving elephant at the same time, but quantum wierdness DOES border on the 'mystical' hence Schrodingers cat, double slit, parallel universes, many minds etc...

The same way you know any scientific law is always true whether you're consciously looking at it or not. The same way you know that tree falling in the forest still makes a sound even when there's nobody around. In other words, you don't know, but all of science and rational existence depends on making the assumption, and there's nothing special about this case to make us stop.

Isn't that the fundamental problem with quantum theory though? That the experimental evidence shows that these assumptions are not reliable.

Always a dangerous question to ask in this forum. I have considerable knowledge of the history of Iran, as well as the Persian and Parthian empires. Insulting my knowledge level is probably a really bad idea. I recommend another direction.

I must say, I doubt you have much knowledge of Iran in the 20th Century.

A very common view. Also a highly biased and blindered one that focuses on specific instances rather than the whole. But as I've said above, I really have no problem with your expression of your opinion. It bothers me not in the least that it's completely polarized from my own. That's what makes the forum interesting.

It's not my opinion, it's got nothing to do with opinions, it's just the truth. Its a fact, and I would suggest that if you knew your stuff you'd know you can't really disagree. Unless you choose to ignore the facts that is.

Amusing that you gave that particular example -- George is one of the worst at closed-minded ideological demogoguery. There's a difference between having an open mind and declaring everyone who disagrees with you to have a closed one. But that's a common tactic with extremists -- painting themselves as the normal ones, because they can't handle being outsiders. (shrug)

I've never said you or anyone else has a closed mind. With all due respect, you seem to be the only one saying it. I was talking about MY mind being 'opened'. Also, may I add that, if anyone is, you seem to be the only extremist around here. The very fact that you think I am one, and even use the term, speaks volumes.

Sorry you got suckered into that quagmire, but you'll work youself out of it eventually. And it's not uncommon around here. There are respectable scientists and engineers on this board who are utterly convinced that we never went to the moon, that we were visited by aliens in 1957, and/or that Bush was behind 9/11. You'd think scientific-minded people would have a built-in immunity to unsupported "evidence", but it just doesn't seem to be so. Ah well.

No need to apologize. I'm in no quagmire, but thanks for your concern:-)

I'd have to say the SAS. They trained Delta Force.

Maybe Ray Mears, he trains the SAS:-)

Well, his contention is that today's republicans aren't really republicans. He claims that republicans have traditionally been the anti-war party. That the party has been hijacked by neocons that only share the fiscal characteristics of the republican party.

 

I think he has a point, but it's a little weak since he's more libertarian than anything else - hence his presidential bid in 1988 as a libertarian. I think he's running as a republican because our two party system snubs other parties. They don't get to participate in debates and are generally ignored.

 

He's a capitalist, so not your favorite type. But he's also a non-interventionist. He believes we should withdraw our troops from all over the world - within reason of course - particularly the middle east, and stop policing and meddling.

 

I wonder how you'd feel about a capitalist that loathes war...

That's quite an interesting attitude, and he is probably correct about Neo-Cons not being true Republicans. Neo-Cons are gung ho, whereas I suppose true Republicans are far more conservative.

It would be nice to say that a true capitalist SHOULD hate war as it interferes with trade, but as I said above, war can be very profitable so maybe that's not true. Also capitalism often results in war in the end (long story why really).

I'd welcome a non-interventionist approach, but it does depend what is meant by that. There are leaders in the world who are awful but supported by the West. We should stop supporting them and let the people of those countries decide what they want. Similarly, there may be times when intervention is a good thing (Sierra Leone as a recent example).

I'm also a bit suspicious of people who like low taxes. Taxes are essentially the people buying services in bulk to get them at the lowest price, and, depending how they're spent (a whole subject on it's own) they can be a very good thing and save individuals money in the long term. Compare US Health Service spending per person to UK spending via taxes on our National Health Service for example.

Anyway, having said all that, compared to Bush Jr. he'll be perfect!

Most cats don't over eat, but I'm not sure why. Maybe evolution has made cats careful about their weight so that it doesn't affect their ability to hunt. Dogs, being pack animals can perhaps rely more on other pack members to bring home the bacon so aren't so bothered (evolutionarily speaking) about getting fat.

Also, most cats kill for 'fun' regardless of how much they are fed. They tend not to eat what they catch if well fed though (apart from my cat of course who leaves mouse bums and tails around the place!).

mixing terms here. observer does not mean 'a person' or 'a conciousness'

 

what it means here is an interaction.

How do you know that without observation by a conscious mind?

I actually think the basics of Fruedian theory are correct. From an evolutionary point of view it's hard to believe that sexual desire ISN'T the prime mover behind everything else.

I think he went a bit far, and some of his conclusions were just plain wrong, but in general I think he was on the button.

Part of having an open mind is being open to the idea that you don't have an open mind.

I'm open to that idea. Where's the evidence though?

Maybe not, if we can get Ron Paul elected...I like that guy so far.

Yeah but if he's so nice, how come he's a republican? I'd like to see Al Gore re-elected - and I know what I said!