Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm wondering if we may be overthinking these phrases and signs just a bit...
Think about it.
Perhaps.
But I remember...well, now I guess it was about 15 years ago when all school administrators in Fairfax County, Virginia were required to attend a week of minority sensitivity training sessions. I was all in favor of the program, thought it was necessary, and mostly applauded what they did in the various sessions. Wonderful panels of parents from various minority cultures, panels of students, and a few guest speakers.
But on Thursday, in one of the sessions, one of the audience members said something about some minority group, I've forgotten which one, but it was something along the lines of, "I find Middle Eastern fathers to be very rude and in your face when they come into a difficult conference". And the speaker said, "You're not even allowed to think that". Then I jumped in. "Since when has working for this school system taken away my right to think and have opinions. How I work -- how I speak, how I act -- sure. I'm being paid to act and speak a certain way in my profession by this school system. But what thoughts I have in my head...the school system has become the thought police? I don't think so". The speakers mouth literally dropped open, especially as several others in the audience began agreeing, and she called a break, and I could see her consulting with one of the area superintendents during the break. When we came back together, she apologized and assured us that of course, we had a right to think as we wished and to hold our own opinions, but that we were expected to act in a way that supported the mission statement and policies of the school system.
And this trend in our nation that seems to imply, or sometimes say outright, that people don't have a right to THINK something...it is worrisome, and it does bring up the concept of the thought police.
I may be an atheist and speak out against many things religious, but I have no desire to tell religionists that they can't practice their religions, providing they do not do so in ways that interfere with the lives of others. And religionists need to give those who believe in the "something else" and "somethings else" the same courtesy.
I may be an atheist and speak out against many things religious, but I have no desire to tell religionists that they can't practice their religions, providing they do not do so in ways that interfere with the lives of others. And religionists need to give those who believe in the "something else" and "somethings else" the same courtesy.
religionist need to learn what freedom of religion means.
But I remember...well, now I guess it was about 15 years ago when all school administrators in Fairfax County, Virginia were required to attend a week of minority sensitivity training sessions. I was all in favor of the program, thought it was necessary, and mostly applauded what they did in the various sessions. Wonderful panels of parents from various minority cultures, panels of students, and a few guest speakers.
But on Thursday, in one of the sessions, one of the audience members said something about some minority group, I've forgotten which one, but it was something along the lines of, "I find Middle Eastern fathers to be very rude and in your face when they come into a difficult conference". And the speaker said, "You're not even allowed to think that". Then I jumped in. "Since when has working for this school system taken away my right to think and have opinions. How I work -- how I speak, how I act -- sure. I'm being paid to act and speak a certain way in my profession by this school system. But what thoughts I have in my head...the school system has become the thought police? I don't think so". The speakers mouth literally dropped open, especially as several others in the audience began agreeing, and she called a break, and I could see her consulting with one of the area superintendents during the break. When we came back together, she apologized and assured us that of course, we had a right to think as we wished and to hold our own opinions, but that we were expected to act in a way that supported the mission statement and policies of the school system.
And this trend in our nation that seems to imply, or sometimes say outright, that people don't have a right to THINK something...it is worrisome, and it does bring up the concept of the thought police.
I may be an atheist and speak out against many things religious, but I have no desire to tell religionists that they can't practice their religions, providing they do not do so in ways that interfere with the lives of others. And religionists need to give those who believe in the "something else" and "somethings else" the same courtesy.
That seems sound. The PC 'Thought -police' reminds me of a thread we had where we discussed the 'Gay Cake' business and what the Other side seemed to fail to understand was that the legal principle was in place and cases about whether that was being infringed or not did not invalidate the legal principle, as the Opposition seemed to think In the same way, a legal principle against 'hate speech' is in place. And while some might be wrong in how they apply it - implying 'thought crime' as you pointed out (1) the principle itself is a good one and necessary. One day perhaps, telling people that they are going to hell will become Actionable. That's shpould pay for a Learjet or two.
(1) which is the foolishness of Matthew 5 27 is in taking the requirement for faithfulness and making it a thought crime. It's a principle I prefer to use as in the Kirk Dictum 'We will kill - but not today'. It is recognising our failings but not letting them rule us. Matthew tries to demand that we become angels, and this is either foolish or manipulative.
You know how the con works - to sell the cure, you first need to persuade people they are ill. To 'sell' forgiveness, you first need to persuade people they are in need of it. So make everyday stuff <<clip>> a Thought Crime.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-26-2019 at 07:49 AM..
Reason: Removed irreverent remark.
That seems sound. The PC 'Thought -police' reminds me of a thread we had where we discussed the 'Gay Cake' business and what the Other side seemed to fail to understand was that the legal principle was in place and cases about whether that was being infringed or not did not invalidate the legal principle, as the Opposition seemed to think In the same way, a legal principle against 'hate speech' is in place. And while some might be wrong in how they apply it - implying 'thought crime' as you pointed out (1) the principle itself is a good one and necessary. One day perhaps, telling people that they are going to hell will become Actionable. That's shpould pay for a Learjet or two.
(1) which is the foolishness of Matthew 5 27 is in taking the requirement for faithfulness and making it a thought crime. It's a principle I prefer to use as in the Kirk Dictum 'We will kill - but not today'. It is recognising our failings but not letting them rule us. Matthew tries to demand that we become angels, and this is either foolish or manipulative.
You know how the con works - to sell the cure, you first need to persuade people they are ill. To 'sell' forgiveness, you first need to persuade people they are in need of it. So make everyday stuff <<clip>> a Thought Crime.
speaking of con ...
this only addresses a religion's short comings and doesn't, in away, address the statement "something more, not more goods" is less valid than "nothing more, deny all goods.". In fact we know that you can't address the two claims side by side because the latter is far less valid. On a scientific level that is.
On an emotional level I guess one can hold that view but then it becomes comparing one emotional claim against another emotional claim. And anybody can see what happens next with that. one emotion has to deny the other exist at all cost.
What is just as telling as your post here is why some atheist need to minimize, deny, ban aligning the traits of the universe to the traits, or evidence, of a belief statement about god. Its the same exact tactic as the gay cake incident. if your a religionist type thinker looking at all the facts isn't the best course of action.
Last edited by mensaguy; 10-26-2019 at 07:50 AM..
Reason: Quoted post edited.
That seems sound. The PC 'Thought -police' reminds me of a thread we had where we discussed the 'Gay Cake' business and what the Other side seemed to fail to understand was that the legal principle was in place and cases about whether that was being infringed or not did not invalidate the legal principle, as the Opposition seemed to think In the same way, a legal principle against 'hate speech' is in place. And while some might be wrong in how they apply it - implying 'thought crime' as you pointed out (1) the principle itself is a good one and necessary. One day perhaps, telling people that they are going to hell will become Actionable. That's shpould pay for a Learjet or two.
(1) which is the foolishness of Matthew 5 27 is in taking the requirement for faithfulness and making it a thought crime. It's a principle I prefer to use as in the Kirk Dictum 'We will kill - but not today'. It is recognising our failings but not letting them rule us. Matthew tries to demand that we become angels, and this is either foolish or manipulative.
You know how the con works - to sell the cure, you first need to persuade people they are ill. To 'sell' forgiveness, you first need to persuade people they are in need of it. So make everyday stuff <<clip>> a Thought Crime.
I have spent a lot of time here unsuccessfully trying to present enough understanding of the actual issues in physics that the reductionist materialist position presents for the phenomenon of consciousness. The concrete minds here represented by Arq and the Bayesian minds here represented by Harry dominate with such tenacity they resemble Sam Johnson kicking the rock and breaking his foot to prove the materialist position. I yield to my inability to adequately present the issues. The following article does the best job I have seen yet. I hope you will engage with it honestly and at least temper your certainty about your reductionist materialist views.
I have spent a lot of time here unsuccessfully trying to present enough understanding of the actual issues in physics that the reductionist materialist position presents for the phenomenon of consciousness. The concrete minds here represented by Arq and the Bayesian minds here represented by Harry dominate with such tenacity they resemble Sam Johnson kicking the rock and breaking his foot to prove the materialist position. I yield to my inability to adequately present the issues. The following article does the best job I have seen yet. I hope you will engage with it honestly and at least temper your certainty about your reductionist materialist views.
...
1. Part of the reason you have been unsuccessful is that you're forcing primarily science onto a religion/spirituality forum. The mods have told you this. Many of us have told you this. But you have chosen to ignore that.
2. Have you ever heard the phrase: If the horse is dead, dismount.
I have spent a lot of time here unsuccessfully trying to present enough understanding of the actual issues in physics that the reductionist materialist position presents for the phenomenon of consciousness. The concrete minds here represented by Arq and the Bayesian minds here represented by Harry dominate with such tenacity they resemble Sam Johnson kicking the rock and breaking his foot to prove the materialist position. I yield to my inability to adequately present the issues. The following article does the best job I have seen yet. I hope you will engage with it honestly and at least temper your certainty about your reductionist materialist views.
If only I was trying to prove the materialist position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
perhaps, telling people that they are going to hell will become Actionable. That's shpould pay for a Learjet or two. 
<<clip>> 
