the subject of secret military tribunals has been raised here in recent months, and i've made no secret of my displeasure at such moves.
it was pointed out to me that president lincoln also did this, something i was not aware of.
however, i have recently read an article in the feb. 2002 issue of the atlantic monthly that discusses the world war ii precedent cited by bush for these tribunals.
dubla,
really? there was no revenge taken on nyc?None that I am aware of. The attacks on Washington and NYC on 9/11 have never been traced to the trials that I've heard, but have been traced to many other motives. They tried to destroy the WTC the first time, and their bombs weren't strong enough. So they tried again. It had nothing to do with the trials.
leaving congregation meetings has given me the opportunity to see all the films that a group of old men, many of which have little or no respect for the world of art, have told me not to see.
i saw a lot of films from last year since i got my bachelor's degree, in the midst of a job search (which has now ended)...anyway, these were the best films i saw from last year.
opinions welcome..
Preston,
SPOILERS!
.
.
.
.
Yeah, that's my take too. The movie opens with her asleep, after all, and she several times refers to this being "like a dream" and then 2/3 of the way through the cowboy says, "Time to wake up, pretty girl" and she does wake up. So my view is that the first 2/3 are her dream where she takes the people and events from her life and fits them into a better version than the reality she is living. Then she wakes up, has a brief scene in the present moment, and then the rest of the movie is a series of flashbacks showing what actually happened, explaining the dream, until the last scene.
A really great movie about how dreams can go unfulfilled life can disappoint and how Hollywood grinds through people. Naomi Watts gave an amazing performance.
leaving congregation meetings has given me the opportunity to see all the films that a group of old men, many of which have little or no respect for the world of art, have told me not to see.
i saw a lot of films from last year since i got my bachelor's degree, in the midst of a job search (which has now ended)...anyway, these were the best films i saw from last year.
opinions welcome..
We have similar taste in filme. I loved Mulholland Drive, The Deep End, Panic, A.I., and Memento as well.
I also understand Mulholland Drive, something that seems to be rare among movie reviewers. How about you? Did you get it all?
you can't have purpose without intelligence,and.. you can't have intelligence without intelligence.. .
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
RWC said:
I would agree with you Seeker if intelligence is defined as the ability to understand why something is engaging in certain behavior.Since that is the definition of "intelligence" I have been using all along, I said what I said. I realize RWC and I don't agree on all aspects of this topic, but at least my intent was understood.
you can't have purpose without intelligence,and.. you can't have intelligence without intelligence.. .
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
RWC,
Thanks, you seem to get what I am saying. It may be that we are all viewing these words differently since they haven't been pinned down precisely. But that is what I meant that you can have purpose without intelligence.
you can't have purpose without intelligence,and.. you can't have intelligence without intelligence.. .
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
You said, "I think evolution is probably true," and then you used the tired "theory" argument against it. Oh sure, you wrote in such generalities you can give plausible deniability to whatever I say now. You can point out that you said the way ants developed is one theory, and thus you believe it. But you said there are other theories for that explanation, even though I know of none that are scientifically credible.
And now you are quibbling over what your original premise meant. Since I can't read your mind, I went with what you wrote. Clearly I misunderstood what you intended, and since we are getting nowhere with these word games, I'll leave you in peace on this subject.
you can't have purpose without intelligence,and.. you can't have intelligence without intelligence.. .
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
That's one threory. There are others.
I see you don't accept evolution as much as you said.
you can't have purpose without intelligence,and.. you can't have intelligence without intelligence.. .
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
D Wiltshire,
Copy of title of thread:: You Can't Have Purpose Without Intelligence...And thus there is an example of a purpose being carried out without intelligence being directed toward that purpose's fulfillment. And that was the intent of the premise, even if it wasn't spelled out, or else the premise becomes meaningless. It would then be like saying, I have purpose and you have intelligence, and thus that counts.
So the ants do have a purpose and they do have intelligence. True they don't have a complete understanding of what they do or why they do it.
I'm fascinated to see your (or anyone else's) reponse to simple-celled organisms, which have NO thought, no intelligence, and yet have the purpose of survival.
the subject of secret military tribunals has been raised here in recent months, and i've made no secret of my displeasure at such moves.
it was pointed out to me that president lincoln also did this, something i was not aware of.
however, i have recently read an article in the feb. 2002 issue of the atlantic monthly that discusses the world war ii precedent cited by bush for these tribunals.
If this were the People's Republic of China holding Taliban detainees ... the issue would not even be debated to discussed. The Chinese would simply pronounce them guilty and shoot them in the back of the head and kick them into the grave they made them dig for themselves.
Funny enough, that's almost exactly what Roosevelt had done to the would-be saboteurs. They were pronounced guilty, then they held a trial where the guilt was announced, then they were taken to be executed a few days later. Just like China. Hmm....
I do agree with you, Amazing, that news travels much faster today, and so the people in the U.S. Government who want to get up to dirty tricks have to be more on their toes than it used to be. My point, however, is that the U.S. Government has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy at times. Therefore, as a U.S. citizen, I want my 6th-Amendment rights kept in place so I can keep an eye on things. Without accountability, power corrupts more rapidly.
the subject of secret military tribunals has been raised here in recent months, and i've made no secret of my displeasure at such moves.
it was pointed out to me that president lincoln also did this, something i was not aware of.
however, i have recently read an article in the feb. 2002 issue of the atlantic monthly that discusses the world war ii precedent cited by bush for these tribunals.
ISP,
I don't understand what you are asking me. Can you clarify, please?
