Sergeant Bilko

If only

What a strange reply, I thought the original post was about ethics and the military, funny how some people get kinda testy when their morality is examined. If yiou just wanted to post a thread where everyone agreed with you you should have said so at the beginning.

Well thats not true is it? You do. What about Tibet, Georgia, Bosnia, The Falkland islands and far to many to list. You are justifying the USA excercising its military power how? When the opposition is too weak to fight back much? Please dont lecture me about democracy and dictators, unless you are going to propose invasions of Saudi Arabia so that democracy can flourish there. The United States military is no doubt the most impressive and powerful in the world, however the Ethics which the political leaders often use it are in my opinion questionable on occasion.

Justin I agree with you in a small way, a micro way. Of course we all know these people who have done well, our peers, maybe you and me. But, you are guilty of skimming the data to make cheap shots, my point was a Macro point, and you know that. If you take 30 million people, look at the socio economic background, level of education a pattern will be evident. The rich will get a better start in life, a better education and be able to make better choices. Surely you can see this. On another thread you made a point that you didn't necessarily agree with every point that you made, you were just offering alternative points of view. I respect that I would much rather examine a subject from a variety of angles. But surely there comes a point when you start to learn, apreciate the data and interpret it, not just reaching for the cheap shots. So what do you suggest for the poor, the sick, the weak and the lame. Some half rate system, or go to hell? Please dont say those people are provided for adequately, you know that they are not, you know that quality of Healthcare is directly linked to your ability to pay.

Survival of the fittest and to hell with the rest seems to underpin most of what Justin is espousing, no doubt he will say that there are schemes, programs, welfare. He talks about making good choices but understands so little. Justin, you can only make a good choice if you have the education to make that choice, the rich get a better education than the poor and so the cycle continues. “One of the measures of a civilised society is how well it looks after the most vulnerable members of its society.” is an oft used quote, but you seem to oppose this with every statistic that you try and interpret, and before you say there are programs for these people yes, but these programs do not have the best Doctors and the best equipment they are base level, and so to hell with the weak, the sick, the infirm. "They made bad life choices" We are all a part of an advanced society, and as such we all have a responsibility to that society.

I'm sorry I may have misrepresented what I intended to say, my point was that the Aryan religion preaches selflessness, as do most the strands of Hinduism/Buddhism/Jainism. But if you travel to India what you find is the complete reverse. The culture of the population does not match the preachings of these "gods." The only true gods that they follow are the God that is money, and the God that is the family, everything else can go to hell. Of course I cannot post researched evidence of this, but it is based on a considerable amount of experience. Of course, there is evidence other than my experience, the inherent corruption in that particular society, the vast wealth of the few and the abject poverty of the many, a space program and nuclear weapons where 50% of the population do not have running water. My point here is that despite all of the "teachings and preachings" the vast majority of the followers including the Swamis and Gurus do not adhere to what they say and i strongly suspect that rajaksrna doesn't either.

Some nice preaching here, I'm almost converted. but I do have an issue with the science bit. Sunshine and the sun are not the same qualitatively. The Sun consists of Hot Plasma interwoven with Magnetic fields, mostly made up of Hydrogen with some Helium and a few other bits, where sunshine in its broadest sense is the total frequency spectrum of electrmagnetic radiation given off by the chemical reactions taking place. Why dont you stop preaching such utter rubbish and start giving us something real to discuss

Today is yesterday tomorrow

I usually think of the Sanatana Dharma not as a religion proper, but as a whole family of faiths and traditions bound together by cultural links and, especially, by a common language. It is my understanding that there is no such a thing as a true basic Hinduist doctrine, but rather lineages of Gurus and disciples attempting to develop the best religious life they can, based on their own reflections and interpretations. And thats the Rub, the culture which you are espousing is inherently selfish, all of the preachings are absolute twaddle. Go to India and see how the people are with each other, its all about the love of money and your own familiy, everything else is just for show.

Lets start with the published works of Bhakti Ananda Goswami, and of course the authenticity of those works.

I do hope that these religious employers you are an apologist for draw the line at contraception. A natural extension of your argument would allow them choose whatever else they can exclude from the policy? Will Jehovas witness employers will be able to ban blood transfusions and organ transplants? This kind of specious moral argument undermines the principles of medicine and adds an Orwellian slant to the discussion. Just for you Justin "Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past.

The world according to Justin appears to be a very sinister place, where money rules everything, and those with the money call the shots, those without serve according the wishes and morals of the paymasters. Justin, the healthcare package is part of the compensation package, not some moral code by which an employer decides what healthcare is moral and what is not. I suppose the next step in your world is that the employer decides how you spend your salary, and if it is not in accordance with todays moral position, wages will be withheld? This really is a step on a very slippery slope.

Very apposite, tomorrow, the British government will announce a reduction in income tax for the richest 1% of the population, while at the same time reducing benefits for the poorest.

Apologies if this has already been posted, seems kinda appropriate. Policy advice from the north of England.

Hormones have a lot to do with it as well, it would be interesting to examine the evolution of our bodies hormonal responses to the differing challenges faced by us as a species through time.

I've just been looking at several calculations regarding the year 2018, and I have deduced that it is 5 years 11 months and 12 days away. Amazing, without the revelations of out of the box thinking I would never have realised this.

Hi Beast People have many many reasons for doing things, there are as many reasons for doing things as there are things to do. Why do some people exhibit criminal behavior for example? Its far to simple to say its because they are bad, although they may be. What gives you a kick, may not give me a kick because our experiences of life have been so different. Many psychologists will tell you that the way you look at the world, your schema, is set by the time you are seven years old and that is shaped by the way you were treated when you were very young. The way you view the world very much depends upon the way you are feeling at that precise moment. Some other peoples actions may seem "un logical" to you, and likewide how you see things are the reverse for them. We all have our own version of reality which is unique to each and every one of us. John Grays' book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus gives a good illustration of this and is well worth reading to understand the different perspectives. Psychology is a huge subject and there are very few definate answers as to why, only clues.

I don't see where I have been deliberately misrepresenting your position, and so I would be grateful if you could point this out to me. I have looked at the evidence you provided, and see it as just that evidence, not FACTS. I pointed this out in my earlier posts. However, you seem to have a problem with the fact that I have not 100% accepted everything that you have written, and indeed you have tossed in a straw man of your own "blanketly dismissing" for one. What I did was challenge your assertion that the data was FACT, and not conclusions from a study. Indeed, I clearly stated that it was indeed "evidence" Do you not think that it is a shame that you have not commented on the suggestion that i made that religion is maybe a consequence of inequality in society and not the cause of it?

A considered and interesting reply, I have studied many of the posts within this forum, and have not been able to find any references to "singing lalalala I can't hear you" however I will keep looking. My post merely pointed out that the "evidence" that you presented as "fact" was not necessarily "fact" but it is indeed evidence. On a scientific forum I feel that it is correct to seperate opinion from fact. I would be interested to know which "decent" (very subjective term) societies exist today are in fact "godless and irreligious". It may be more relevant to look at societies which are more unequal than others rather than focus on poverty alone as a yardstick. I think that as a general rule, more unequal societies tend to be more religious. You have the deprivation theory which focuses on the belief that the poor turn to religion as a source of comfort, and the relative power theory which suggests that those at the top of an unequal society disseminate religion to this who are not so fortunate. It is interesting to note that neither of these theories are considered to be the cause of the inequality, but as a consequence of it.

Inow, such a disappointing post from you, these FACTS are merely the results of surveys/studies carried out by: 1, An opinion poll company, and 2, a study group. Neither of which can be construed as carrying the burden of proof to establish the results as fact. They do indeed carry an indication that supports your assertion, but without understanding the research methodology, the actual questions asked, and the slant from which the questions were asked from it is hardly scientific to call the results FACTS. Thefore I submit that you have not been able to refute the assertion from the OP, and have merely offered an alternative hypothesis, albeit backed up by some third part information. Please do not dress up your hypothesis as FACT, when you have not been able to disprove that of the OP conclusively.

In order to accept your premise that science is destroying our society, you first need to explain how you think society is being destroyed and what specifically science is doing to aid and abet this.

See you on the Politics forum.

O dear, Justin please dont mix sadness up with anger, and please excuse my forthrightness in asking you to take your postings to the correct forums. You answers were liked, by someone, somewhere. They were just off topic. In an earlier submission I made a suggestion that the definition of corruption may depend upon your moral, and may I add political viewpoint. I think that your some of your postings have indeed reinforced that view in so far as you seem to suggest that making money is more important than anything else as it is the lifeblood by which you live. A position which seems wide open to the potential for corruption in itself. That is the enrichment of the self however achieved, whatever the consequences is all that matters.

Justin, you seem to be hijacking this thread with a right wing bias towards some excellent answers, all of which have been explained with great lucidity. The OP is talking about corruption, and how it is caused. You seem to have taken exception to the fact that a poster has suggested that corruption is possible in capitalism (our existing system) without adding to your premise that the evil left wing (socialism and comunism) are even more susceptible. Please take you right wing claptrap off to the politics forum where you will find plenty of George Bush wannabees who will agree with you wholeheartedly.

I think the original poster mentioned in one of his replies that "Platocracy" was some kind of ideal. Plato himself viewed the physical world as inevitably corrupt, and indeed Genesis stated that the world was immoral and corrupt before the flood. Your post is extremely articulate but I feel that given the circumstances of the original post being about power, then indeed a moral argument as to the definition of corruption is valid. The Nazis accused 1930's Jewry of corruption and feared their power, which in turn led to the Holocaust. The actual corruption just depended on which side of the fence you were sitting, although the nature of the final solution makes the absoute power=absolute corruption argument seem very accurate.