Some people have social qualities that cause me to have visceral biological responses like dry heaves and headaches. These people generally take more than they give or is a just share arguing that it is a biological response. There is a category of person I loathe - the bully - they intimidate me and elicit a fight or flight response.
Posts by Qcmbr
-
17Love all the people...
by new hope and happiness inthere are a lot of topics about religiouse hatred, so on a personal level why do you find it difficult to love or like individuals?.
.
.
-
-
-
17
Love all the people...
by new hope and happiness inthere are a lot of topics about religiouse hatred, so on a personal level why do you find it difficult to love or like individuals?.
.
.
-
-
Qcmbr
From an evolutionary point of view I do not have the cranial space to form emotional attachments much beyond a few hundred people and beyond that I am forced to conceptualise people in blocks.
Plus some people are ars*holes.
-
33
A Challenge to Apoligists - Why Would a Heavenly Father Kill a Newborn?
by berrygerry inas a father, made in god's love, that has troubled me for a very long time, is that god, as described by the wts, is soon, going to slaughter every, roughly, 7.9 billion people on the planet, because they have figured out a way to come know him as a father according to the wts.. .
as a father, dear apologist, why would you kill/murder a one-day old baby?.
.
-
-
Qcmbr
I asked this question of my Baptist co-worker and in essence he said we exist to worship god, anything he does for us is just and all children who die will have a place in heaven.
I am convinced religion is a form of madness.
-
52
Are first world countries to blame for the bulk of third world squalor?
by tootired2care inthroughout several past threads various posters have emphatically made the point that countries like great britian, united states, france etc.
basically countries where white people exist, are to blame for the poverty in many other third world nations.
some have even went so far as to suggest that the first world is to blame for all third world conditions.. i often see excuses such as these for why a country refuses to provide clean water, some food and basic sanitation for its people:.
-
-
Qcmbr
Most people who don't read history don't realise that most people are repressed by one system or another. The African tribesman for example was oppressed by the African slave trader, the tribal chiefs, constant tribal warfare and by the religious superstitions taught by the shamans. When Europe was colonising the overall benefit brought to the conquered territories was great just the same way as when the Romans conquered Britain it brought huge benefits that dwarfed any tribute extracted. There is such a lot of liberal angst among so many naive people who don't logically follow through their thinking and just blame great powers for the problems of everyone.
No territories were virgin indigenous land that hadn't already been carved up by politics, wars, tribes , treaties and colonisation (Britain itself has been invaded, colonised, united, broken etc. by Danes, Germans, Normans, Romans, Celts etc.) . Is anyone whinging that Europe's issues stem from post Roman Empire? In fact a cursory look at the break up of the Roman Empire shows how society initially regressed in the chaos (Saxon England stopped using money and abandoned many Roman cities). There were terrible things about the Romans but the systems that they replaced and in turn replaced them were arguably much worse (if you think Roman punishment severe check out the Viking Blood Eagle.)
When Europe colonised it didn't find idyllic societies and simply destroy them; it found cultures ruled by kings , divided and exploited (for example the Indian caste system), slavery was rampant ( especially amongst African nations - have a look at who ran those ) , the rule of law was chaotic and brutal (I was reading one commentary from the time that talked about how British colonial troops stopped the tribal practise of tying a criminal to a post , heating a metal rod and forcing them to slide down the post onto it ). If Europe had never colonised the world it is an utter lie to say they would now, and in the intervening years have been free from war, oppression and exploitation and would be first world countries. Most , without invasion and it's cultural lendings, would still be tribal even today (and I include pre Roman Britain in that.) The spread of democracy , technology, philosophy, legal thought , education and trade are what should be focused on not current wars. Countries suffering war now do so because they are socially still tribal or stratified by political religions over which Western colonisation, influence and nation building is a veneer.
A personal lesson my mum told me from my childhood in Rhodesia. She said you could tell the African owned farms from the European because the Africans reverted to tribal farming (grazing goats or low level corn agriculture as their ancestors had done) , the women did most of the farming and in their culture the men went to the town to discuss important matters (drink and play dice normally!) The European farm would be tended, fertilised, productive (remember when Zimbabwe was Africa's breadbasket?) and would employ lots of local people. Mum said that the culture was for the men (or their wives - yes plural) to earn enough money for today and then to stop working and go spend it and that's what many did. Now wind that forward to post colonial now and those farms are all owned by the Africans, but, surprise surprise the ruling party is oppressing its people, the farms aren't productive, Zimbabwe relies on food imports and their leaders blame Britain.
Squalor , poverty and a nations status is in the hands of its own people and it's own local leaders. Colonialism isn't this collosal force of evil as it is painted. Third world countries are third world because despite all the money, knowledge, culture and technology on offer they cling to older traditional beliefs and practices - Ebola is a salient example, spreading largely through an ignorant and superstitious population living a rural existence and suspicious of 'western' technology.
-
5
ISIS war sounds like a money scam
by EndofMysteries inok, if you have been reading news reports, they are saying it will take years to defeat isis.
maybe somebody can explain to me how that is so after considering what i've been led to believe are the facts.
1. isis spreads and takes over cities and military camps by hording and overwhelming them.
-
-
Qcmbr
The economy exists to allocate scare resources and companies will channel supply to places of demand. It is an inevitable consequence of war (the single most effective consumer of resources) that profit will be made. It is not too far fetched to see that many businesses will have a vested interest in war. What is missing is the role we play in a democratic nation. Each and everyone of us contributes to the government we have at the ballot box and how we use our freedom of speech. Economically we are fighting for oil (never forget how important that is in feeding and clothing us all - if you don't think it's worth securing then you haven't thought through the bloody and society collapsing alternatives) but the way we fight war is in our hands. If enough of us want to fight using only drones we can bring soldiers home. If enough of us want boots on the ground to get revenge for incident x or to impose our will then it will happen. Business may lobby and may bribe but they cannot subvert the will of the people - we do that all by ourselves by apathy or knee jerk politics.
Oh and 30000 soldiers spread across tens of thousands of miles of mixed terrain who look and are armed the same as the local populace and are fed by a constant stream of disenfranchised young people fooled or forced into a war they can't win on the field but can win by barbarism and hiding - pause for breath - is awfully difficult to beat by carpet bombs and spy satellites.
-
122
Scottish independance in two days what do you think?
by barry inone thing i would like to say is will the union jack be changed because the scottish flag is incorpreted in it.
if the union jack is changed will we change our australian flag because the union jack is in our flag?
even hawawi has the union jack also fiji and many other commonwealth countries.. .
-
-
Qcmbr
I think that the desire for indepedence is a romantic dream that was played to ridiculuous levels in Scotland. There are plenty of countries that have been conquered who do not share culture, border, racial ties and have had their land and resources used by another country's rich people and quite understandably would like to let the rich people in their country use it. That independence I can understand. Independence from a union built upon shared culture, land, racial intermarriage and where the rich from that union share the land and resources which, like a marriage, has ups and downs but can (and definately does in the UKs case) make a relationship that is greater than the sum of its parts is different. What was Scotland really voting for and how was it portrayed?
- Salmond and 'Team Scotland' v the 3 stooges from Westminster. This is what elections should be about - not cIndependence. Confalting the self rule with 3 leaders in Westminister -that Scottish people already voted for - and who will change within a few years is pure dirty politics. Independence isn't and shouldn't be about personalities or caricatures of political parties.
- Better financial wealth. Without the diverse economic wealth of the UK a central prop of Scottish finances rested upon wildly varying estimates of oil and gas resources. Scotland would not have been able to simply put the oil money in a safe for later as most of it would have to be used to make up the shortfall from tax receipts. Scotland would have become more dependent on oil just as it is becoming most uncertain due to oil prices (the price has to be higher to make it worth exploiting the expensive fields). Scotland was being asked to play a very wild hand with a limited chance of improving their finances but with the knowledge that many basic costs would increase (postal costs, costs of new Scottish offices, some businesses having to relocate head offices, investment not in oil would have a significantly stronger pull south than it already does.) In reality the whole UK does better financially (remember without the hated -envy induced- London wealth, pensions are smaller, NHS can't be funded to the current level etc) and 'Scottish' oil developed by UK expertise and financial capital is shared alongside all the other assets. An independent Scotland doesn't suddenly discover a vast amount of money that was being stolen by the English but it does find itself without London (it is financial naivety and lack of education that seeks to traduce a vibrant , wealth creating world class city to a 'bunch of crooks from Eton'.)
- Get rid of Trident. Defence using nuclear weapons is emotive. Defence is emotive. Scotland, on its own, would have little need of its illustrious ground based military units (they would be cut when the budget noose tightened) but a huge need for an expanded navy (unless they decided they wouldn't police their waters) which would have been ruinous to build and upkeep. The vote should never have been Trident out(arguably part of what has kept WW3 from happening but I digress) but should have detailed what army, if any, Scotland would use. I suspect that many soldiers would have moved south to the remaining British regiments to be part of a world class army as opposed to a regional protection force. Scotland would have ceased to be a military power in reality.
- Currency. Without your own money you can't have huge banking concerns (so they move South) nor can you have true independence since you have no say in currency policy. Scotland would have been forced to absolutely obey Westminster (with no respresentative voice) and the Treasury OR to join the Euro and obey Brussels OR to play Zimbabwe financial roulette by creating their own currency (a recipe for rasied costs and trade hindrance).
- The biggest lie of all. Exiting one union (UK) for political independence would be overuled by the financial need to join another union (The EU) and they are moving towards political union. Scotland in the EU as a full member would be even less represented than many claim she isn't now (ruled from Brussels, almost no say in currency). The UK has special exemptions that Scotland would be very, very unlikley to get and which would mean the handover of a lot of money to Brussles (that oil money that was suppossed to be for a rainy day) and handover of MORE political power than was gained by Independence. This is IF Scotland was even admitted which according to the rules would take a long time (Scotland would have to comply with several conditions) and would require some potentially hostile members (Spain) to agree.
How anyone could vote for independence without at least a groundwork of agreed outcomes is amazing. All that is left is a romantic (and plain wrong) notion that Scotland is somehow a conquered nation that just needs to bump up its production of tartan and escape the hated English to reach a financial and social nirvana where the rich hand out candy and no one is poor. The rich will always try and keep wealth and power whether they sit in Westminster, Eton or Brussels and breaking up a beautiful union that enriches and empowers us all (Scotland and England and Wales and NIreland sit at world tables and have a voice in many powerful places BECAUSE of their shared influence) for some idealistic and romantic uncertainty was rank foolishness and errant recklessness. If Scotland was conquered, her people oppressed and treated as an underclass, her wealth, property and accomplishments stolen then yes I would absolutely agree that Independence was better. If that is how you think Scotland is then you perhaps need a trip out to see the world...
-
122
Scottish independance in two days what do you think?
by barry inone thing i would like to say is will the union jack be changed because the scottish flag is incorpreted in it.
if the union jack is changed will we change our australian flag because the union jack is in our flag?
even hawawi has the union jack also fiji and many other commonwealth countries.. .
-
-
Qcmbr
The political impetus is now there to deal fairly with the rest of the UK. In all this devolution it is the English who seem to lose out everytime. It feels like having to give whining kids a bigger slice of the cake, at your expense, just to keep them quiet. Well tough - now that Scotland had a chance at grabing as much power as they can its time for the rest of the UK to have the same rights. I suspect that in the future the Barnett formula will be replaced as it is perceived as unfair and I hope that MPs from non-English countes will have the right to vote on English matters removed. Scotland has made the correct choice in staying in the Union as it makes everyone richer, gives better opportunities at home and abroad but they've managed to do it by leaving a very bad taste in the mouth. That said I'm glad we are still an advert to the world regarding democracy and how to do it in a grown up fashion. Over the last decade the UK has done some incredible things together , Westminster for all the people complainig about it has done a bang on job with the economy , with security and with the welcoming and fostering of unity through diversity and tolerance and I'm glad that will be allowed to continue. Why anyone , in a world of fractured , anarchic, corrupt and war torn states would want to break up this splendid union that is arguably the greatest the world has ever seen is beyond me.
-
122
Scottish independance in two days what do you think?
by barry inone thing i would like to say is will the union jack be changed because the scottish flag is incorpreted in it.
if the union jack is changed will we change our australian flag because the union jack is in our flag?
even hawawi has the union jack also fiji and many other commonwealth countries.. .
-
-
Qcmbr
Phew
-
122
Scottish independance in two days what do you think?
by barry inone thing i would like to say is will the union jack be changed because the scottish flag is incorpreted in it.
if the union jack is changed will we change our australian flag because the union jack is in our flag?
even hawawi has the union jack also fiji and many other commonwealth countries.. .
-
-
Qcmbr
As a Brit I always thought of us all together with patriotic fervour expressed in sporting rivalry but not much else. Now I find a part of my 'country' telling the rest of us we arent really what they want and amongst a significant portion of Scotland I find almost naked agression - not against Wales or N.Ireland but specifically against England. Im gutted. In the past a trip to see family in Scotland was a short hop but , if they go independent, it will change (not in distance of course) and it will be an international hop. The yes campaign is downplaying the costs of independence and totally ignoring the costs the rest of the uk will face. It feels like having a wonderful neighbour who you share tools with and hang out with suddenly revealing they dont really like you, dont like sharing with and have decided to build a big wall and will be sending you a huge chunk of the bill. Even if its a 'no' Im not certain the rest of the uk will trust Scotland again.
-
50
Question for the nonbelievers and atheists
by nykid inwhat specifically made you stop believing in god and the bible?
was it a steady road of doubts or it was reading one book or one major event that made you realize the bible was not what it's claimed to be?.
.
-
-
Qcmbr
2 years to deconvert. Arguments against mormonism , in general, applied to all faith ideologies. Research , an emotional response when I read and listened to Hitchens and Dawkins (intellectual feeling of being 'home'). Here, finding myself unable to justify my religious beliefs and finding that the reasons for doubting and leaving the WT were equally valid for leaving lds corp.