Free
-
Posts
1,008 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Free
-
-
I rather think letting this kid believe that his clock was an invention or even continuing to insist it was his own construction as a praise of his amazing-ness is a certain kind of cruel.
Well firstly, I am pretty damn sure the kid does not think he "invented" a clock, for goodness sake!!! He may have said so in an interview or two, but then even Presidents & CEOs are known to trip on words sometimes. When somebody dissects a child's words to this extent, I do not know what else to call this but mean spirited pettiness.
And then to critique a complete stranger's work on the internet based off a grainy photo when a few pages back you admitted you did not know enough electronics to differentiate between a clock and a bomb? I don't know what to call that either.I'm sorry, I don't have a personal problem with Ahmed, I didn't realize discussing his device was verboten or automatically considered hating on him.
And what need is there to discuss the boy's device? Unless one resents his sudden fame and wants to tear him down?
Other than that, what he has put in the public eye seems like it could be objectively discussed in an adult manner.
Sorry, Ahmed did not put anything up to the public, nor did he seek the horde of internet armchair experts to critique his device. The clock, from what I read was still in police custody.
He is a 14 year old boy whose hand-cuffed picture was tweeted by his sister, which then went viral. His international fame is not the work of some evil genius mastermind.
He may be sure be basking in the spotlight for now. But then, so what? I am happy for him. I am happy that a really ugly situation was turned around by the generous people who supported him and sent him some really cool invitations and freebies. I was reading an interview with him where he seemed to freaking out about "going viral" and that made me laugh. Because I have a 14 year old myself and I can relate to this boy.
I would rather, a boy called Ahmed who showed passion and interest, get his 15 mins of fame, than the Kim Davises and the Jareds and the Duggars of this world.
-
32
-
-
Not to squash the kid's curiosity, but it seems like taking apart a clock and putting it in a different box and calling it his invention seems juvenile...like something in the 8-10-12yo range. Maybe y'all are right and the state of STEM ed is really bad if this kid is the cream of the crop and he's pretending to "invent" a clock for fun and thinking that an engineering teacher would think it was amazing.
Or maybe he just used a word incorrectly? That can happen you know.
-
6
-
-
I'm reading through "Make It Stick" right now. It is not a teaching book, but rather a book on how to learn so that the brain can retain information. I think it is a must read for homeschoolers/ teachers.
-
2
-
-
Hmm, here in India "gift" is often used as a verb. I always put it down to it being a more British form of the word. I don't know if that is the case, however.
Absolutely. I am surprised by this thread. I have always been taught "gift" is both a verb and a noun.
-
1
-
-
I'm curious as to why and appreciate your thoughts. I agreed with your initial statement that it was likely not legal assault but that she was still a victim, just perhaps not in a legal way.
This is such a strange case. I don't think that if you agree to put yourself in a compromising position as she did that anything goes by any means... but she seems to have overlooked so many sensible precautions in a situation like this.
Yes some people overlook sensible precautions and end up more likely to be assaulted. Her gullibility / stupidity does not let the other person off the hook for what she did.
-
3
-
-
We will have to agree to disagree. Your mother now and then choosing to forgo dessert isn't what I mean. I meant, at each meal, does she want to keep eating because it is there and tastes good, but stops herself with sheer will power, or does she just feel satisfied and therefore doesn't keep eating past what her body needs? If she stops because she just doesn't really care for any more, why doesn't your father?
And yes, food is very much an addiction for many.
Well, I know people in my family who eat because of habit. It is meal/snack time, so we must eat. I think this is actually very common. Like regentrude, I too don't know anybody who eats only when they are hungry. I also think it is easy to condition our brains to eating a certain portion size, or certain foods. For example, before marriage I wasn't fond of sweets. I wasn't fond of snacking on oily stuff. I never drank soft drinks of any kind. My husband loves snacking and sweets and I picked up these habits from him. Nowsdays I don't feel 'satiated' if I don't end my meal with something sweet. My brain is conditioned this way. It has nothing to do with hunger.
-
8
-
-
If she was told it was a penis and it was not, then I would say she was a victim.
If she was not told it was a penis and only assumed it to be so, then I would say she was not a victim.
I find this to be a weird requirement that one must ascertain the modus operandi of the penetration before one engages in the sex act. I mean, I would always tend towards assuming that sex involves body parts unless explicitly specified.
-
2
-
-
Is giving consent for blindfolding implied consent for what happened?
No of course not. Consenting to be blindfolded during sex is not implicit permission for the partner to do just anything he wants with her body. As another poster mentioned, It is not for example permission to have a beer bottle thrust inside her. It is also not permission for her partner to let a third person have sex with her.
Even among long time partners where there is no deception involved, I would still find it bordering assault if one of the partners used a sex-toy or an object on the other without permission.
-
3
-
-
It is kind of ironical that when religious people say "science requires faith" or "secularism is a religion" they mean that as an insult.
-
Not a cult, but for a short while I seriously bought into the radical unschooling/ unparenting philosophy and decided that it was OK to let my child watch TV and play video games for an unlimited amount of time because all these women on the internet were saying that was the right and loving way to raise a child.
Sometimes when you are struggling and your inner compass is not yet developed enough, and your personal value system is still evolving you don't know what to believe. You don't trust yourself, so you just want a simple rule book that tells you what to do and is guaranteed to produce results.
In some cases (like in my own short-lived experiment with radical unparenting) you realise pretty quickly that you are not getting the results you desire and start looking elsewhere.
-
13
-
-
Basically? I Dale McGowan it -
This was excellent. Thanks for sharing mamaraby.
-
2
-
-
We recently found a few of these on youtube. I would LOVE to have all of them, but cannot find an affordable price for the series.
Try this channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi7c_7_PgUJILBkoRivyhcw/videos. They seem to have all of them.
-
This.
No one is stopping the rainbow-covered sexual cavorting at those parades. No one even says anything because no one is there who doesn't wish to promote this kind of activity. We've seen all the Jesus-on-the-cross dudes making out with other dudes because that stuff constantly gets reposted online, and apparently that sort of disrespect is just fine.
But merely saying that statement I just made is enough to get hateful speech and retaliation. as several retailers have discovered, even that poor girl in Indiana at the pizza place who merely said something like, "We don't do gay weddings". Of course they don't- who has pizza at the wedding?
Tolerance apparently means, "You must wholeheartedly embrace and support what I am doing" to certain elements instead of just live and let live.
I am not sure I understand. Are you saying that you must have the right to speak your mind without it being labelled hate speech?
-
3
-
-
But this part gets tricky too. Is saying that something is wrong "intolerance" against that group? What if you say it is wrong, but that people should still be allowed to make their own choices? To me, that is not intolerance. But for some, that is how it is used. That is when I think it becomes intolerance itself - by not allowing a different view to be expressed or even held.
I have made a subsequent post which I hope clarifies this point. Nobody is saying that those views must not allowed to be held or expressed.
-
1
-
-
So much for free speech and civil discourse.
No where in my posts or in the quotes I used, has restriction of speech been suggested in anyway.
You took exception to this:
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
This depends on what you want to tolerate. Tolerance cannot be unlimited. Tolerance of the existence of intolerant views and the right to express those? Yes. Even Karl Popper says so himself in the part of his quote you snipped off :
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.
Tolerance of the right to act on those views? No. The right to discriminate against others does not fall under free speech.
-
3
-
-
Someone said, "In any case, even if we take the British meaning of bigotry, it is not bigoted to be intolerant of bigotry itself."
I reply: This is deeply and profoundly hypocritical, and a surprising stance on a classical board.
It is not hypocritical, it is logical. I cannot see how one can logically tolerate hate and intolerance without being complicit in perpetuating the hate.
You yourself quoted Martin Niemoller:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.He meant this poem to be about the cowardice of people not speaking out against hatred and bigotry. It was NOT a poem about standing up for protecting the right of the Nazis to discriminate. It was most certainly not about "tolerating hate".I put up a Karl Popper in a previous post. Quoting him again:Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.ETA: Here's to hoping that quoting Niemoller and Popper will elevate my post to classical board quality :cheers2:-
15
-
-
Nope, I'm saying that according to dictionary.com a bigot is someone who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
It's clear that this term has been misused in this thread; that definition is a bit different than what I had thought myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
The concept of Bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.
In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[1][2]
In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[3][4]
In any case, even if we take the British meaning of bigotry, it is not bigoted to be intolerant of bigotry itself.
-
4
-
-
Are you saying one should tolerate hate and discrimination, that one should look the other way when discrimination happens and that one should even allow discrimination to happen in the workplace?
-
5
-
-
What is un-American and unjust is forcing everyone to comply with one's view of the world under penalty of force -- mean or not.
So you were a supporter of SSM then?
-
1
-
-
I appreciate your take on a "right thinking society", and I'm curious what you would base this moral absolute on? As in, by what standard you judge which views should be shameful and which views are not? I mean, any views can have an increase in a "hateful climate", and if you don't believe me I can go make some of my arguments on DailyKos or the like and see what happens.
I am sincerely glad you've never been in a position where you've had to draw the kind of boundaries that I'm talking about, or say the things that I'm talking about, although none of those have anything to do with homosexuality in my case. There is some ground for action between "telling people how wrong they are about things" and complete tolerance of anything they want to do. I'm assuming being on this forum that you have kids, so I do find it hard to believe that your love for them has never taken the form of trying to get them to behave in a different way or telling them something is unsafe or self-destructive. My point is that if you've ever had to do something like this, then you've experienced love as a force that is not all about acceptance and tolerance. And perhaps you draw that line different places than I do, but like I said, I've only seen one family in my entire life where love was viewed as complete and total acceptance, tolerance, and permissiveness and it was not good, so I know that most people do indeed draw the line. I know absolutely no one who views all human behaviors as healthy or good. So, philosophically speaking, you (general) have the same dogma and inflexibility in your views that you would accuse me of, the lines just fall in different places and are based on different standards. But most people I discuss this with reject my views on the basis that there are no moral absolutes, everything is relative, etc. And yet, they say that I am definitively and absolutely wrong for adhering to a standard they believe is inflexible. That is what I find incongruous.
I must admit that I am a little fuzzy on the idea of the moral absolute with an external unchanging, unbending locus. I have heard some Christians argue that this external source of morality is the Bible. Other religious people (including many Christians) have argued that it is God himself who has imprinted in humans the ability to reason morally.If it is the former, then I see no evidence for it in the real world. I mean, if the Bible had been this external source of unchanging moral absolute, then Christians would have or atleast should have known that massacring Native Americans and stealing their lands, enslaving Africans and denying women and blacks their civil rights were wrong. But at the time, not only were these ideas not seen as wrong these were seen as good and holy and proper Christians values.It seems to me then, that using the Bible as a source for morality is not a guarantee against holding immoral positions.If it is the latter belief however, then it seems to be indistinguishable from the regular messy business of deciding what is moral and what is not using plain old human reason, intellect and a capacity for empathy and compassion. The way Morality actually seems to work in the real world, is that it seems to constantly evolve from generation to generation with some issues long ago settled (murder, theft, rape) and other issues undergoing their periods of trial right now - racism, women's rights, gay rights. Yet more issues are lurking round the corner awaiting their turn to be debated and put to rest - euthanasia, animal rights.Like Bill said, the ideas of love, kindness, compassion, dignity - they are the foundational principles of all moral systems. These ideas cut across religions, societies and cultures and remain true across space and time. In addition to these, I myself am very fond of the more modern ideas of liberty and equality. I think these are all good guiding principles; the lodestones that point almost always in the right direction and which have been tested and have proven time and again to increase health, happiness and overall prosperity and human well-being (as albeto. likes to say).I am not a moral relativist and I don't know anybody IRL or online who is. Irrespective of what we call ourselves, we all do however reach our moral conclusions in an identical manner - we read, we deliberate, we discuss. Sometimes we come across an opinion that challenges us to think differently, so we read, deliberate, discuss some more and refine our initial positions and at times even go so far as to change our minds. And as history has shown us, even Christian moral absolutist positions are not immune from this process of change.-
6
-
-
What I don't understand is the people that would want to shame me for my views, ostracize those who believe similarly, threaten those with views you (general) don't like with "repercussions" etc, etc (oh and lump me and others in with those who would beat up or kill someone for being gay, or someone who would force my children on the streets)...how is all of that any less dogmatic or hateful than what you think I believe?
Even though we may not personally feel hatred, some ideas we espouse do absolutely perpetrate a general atmosphere in which some people find justification to hate and to commit hate crimes. When such ideas/views are shown to have a link to an increase in the hateful climate, then yes those views will be (and in a right thinking society should be) seen as shameful and looked down upon.
As for love, I know no one who loves anyone in their life by tolerating and/or celebrating anything or everything they do. Actually, I take that back, I have seen that in a family, and the results were decidedly not good. So please don't tell me you've never loved someone in your life by telling them or showing them they were wrong about something. It is often the absolute hardest part of loving someone.
You are right I have tried telling people I love how they are wrong about some things.....but curiously it has never actually worked to either change them or to improve my love for them. If anything I have felt less love and more judgement in these instances.
What has helped me to love better was to learn how to accept others unconditionally, which I have found is even more hard than telling people how wrong they are.
-
8
-
-
What do you define as Gods standards of stated intent?
I was actually responding to the second paragraph in her post. This part:
The concept of morality doesn't become moot when one removes the main character of the bible from the equation any more than it becomes moot when one removes karma or reincarnation from the equation. Morality is a philosophical argument about "right" and "wrong" that develops in cultures and societies as they are shaped by individual and collective experiences, information, and new ideas. These concepts exist outside your religion, and outside religion in general so no, morality doesn't become moot in the absence of a supernatural deity.
Regarding God's stated intent, I have no opinion on the matter considering that even when I was a theist, I never viewed God as having any intention.
-
1
-
-
It's a straw man. Whether I consider myself a moral person or not is irrelevant to God's inability or unwillingness to conform to standards of his stated intent.
The concept of morality doesn't become moot when one removes the main character of the bible from the equation any more than it becomes moot when one removes karma or reincarnation from the equation. Morality is a philosophical argument about "right" and "wrong" that develops in cultures and societies as they are shaped by individual and collective experiences, information, and new ideas. These concepts exist outside your religion, and outside religion in general so no, morality doesn't become moot in the absence of a supernatural deity.
This is so succinctly stated...love it.
-
2
-
-
Welcome to the forums.
This thread has a few links and info:
http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/1503-abbreviation-sticky/
Hope this helps.
Can we talk about the Brexit vote??
in The Chat Board
Posted
Relevant.