It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by lifeform
i don't think the bloke who was speaking on the venus project was talking about people not being able to teach their children values, morals etc, i think he was simply explaining the way corruption works and the way it is today.
Originally posted by mystiq
Native North Americans were not communistic, or fascist. Our black and white idioms do not describe the beauty of an equal system. Initially all people would be struggling to erect in groups, homes for each other, including people who aren't physically capable of labor. Resources would have to be pooled and shared. So the idea of sharing versus winners and losers is communism? Then that means anything thats not sharing should immmediately have an ugly negative word as well, since sharing is obviously the righteous, ideal, loving and fair thing to do.
Our current building is wasteful and destructive to our forests. Here are some examples of what we could accomplish Bali style, were the communities get together and raise houses for each other:
www.greenhomebuilding.com...
www.earthship.net...
IMG]http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn251/mystiq123/IMG_0161highlight.jpg[/IMG]
These are just teasers of a bali style roof raising.
[edit on 9-10-2008 by mystiq]
Originally posted by cetta
reply to post by lifeform
Originally posted by lifeform
i don't think the bloke who was speaking on the venus project was talking about people not being able to teach their children values, morals etc, i think he was simply explaining the way corruption works and the way it is today.
But many people have many different values and morals. My values and morals could be different from your values and morals and it could or could not be because of the way each of us were raised or the type of religious views we were brought up around.
Someones values and morals COULD be to teach their children to believe in a certain deity or to have certain religious practices.
And these things should not be done away with.
Originally posted by mystiq
Communism is a fascist government, very large and intrusive government, and is a relatively modern concept. Applying terms like these to First Nations People is incorrect and misleading. Communal, or cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang. Next you'll be saying women are communists. Well between capitalism, fascism and a moneyless, cooperative resource society, I know which one will save the human race, and the only one that is worth bringing a child into. All the others are child abuse.
...
I think it’s the CORRUPTION of religion to wage war. I never knew a single, true Bible believer that wanted war and strife and conflict. Those that claim to be Christians and want that don’t really know their Bible or Christian warfare (what this country was supposed to be based on). As for the Muslim religion, that’s been heavily, heavily perverted too by a lot of people. Like the tribes in Afghanistan that just do what their tribal leaders tell them to because they think that’s apart of their religion — but I’m not even saying that’s bad either because that’s like tribes in Africa, or Native American tribes that do what their leaders tell them to.
And before we get into the tribal Muslim leaders telling them to hate and attack Americans, you and I both know that’s a separate subject all together.
But my point is it’s the rights of these people to keep their tradition and heritage — even the perverted, warped versions (as you and I see them) of their religion. This is their culture. This is how it’s done. Even Ronald Reagan said something to the effect that we don’t understand Middle Eastern politics or ways of life and should leave them be — this could be said for ANY way of life or culture that is different.
...
Originally posted by mystiq
Communism is a fascist government, very large and intrusive government, and is a relatively modern concept. Applying terms like these to First Nations People is incorrect and misleading. Communal, or cooperative societies are the feminine energies of ying and yang. Next you'll be saying women are communists. Well between capitalism, fascism and a moneyless, cooperative resource society, I know which one will save the human race, and the only one that is worth bringing a child into. All the others are child abuse.
Parents have long been allowed to take their children out of lessons involving religion, while in 2006, sixth-form pupils were given the right to opt out of "collective worship" such as religious assemblies.
1. Who gets to decide how many resources each individual gets?
2. Who gets to decide how to "manage" the resources "properly"?
3. What do you do with the people who do not go along with it.
Money is merely a symbol of value. The real value behind money is in the value of the resources. That is the ONLY thing of value - which will be controlled. And this is different from today how?
It's just more status quo. It's like these people expect these kinds of things to be presented as bad. Of course it's going to be pushed as being better/for the good. But anyone who examines it beyond the image can see exactly what is going on.
Did you notice how you viewed your way of things as rational, and those which did not go in, as being irrational?
Yes, for the sake of simplicity, I chose the 2 averages from 2 bell curves. One demonstrated actions that would be considered positive in society, the other negative. I then compared the frequency with which positive and negative events occur as reported by behaviors that elicit rewards and punishments. I arbitrarily labeled the positive average "rational behavior" and the negative average "irrational behavior." For the most part, positive behavior occurs in the realm of rational thought, whereas negative behavior occurs in irrational thought. See the work of Bandura for more.
Did you notice how you grouped everyone in this world of diversity into 2 groups, or duality?
I find it interesting that you assumed I was attacking the Bible, even though I qualified my one reference to Christianity as being presented by ZG. If ZG wanted to expand its scope to refute all faiths, then IMO, it should have included precise references to Muhammad, Allah, and Yahweh. As for knowing there is more than one way to see the Bible, ZG:A did point out the various denominations of Christianity, which suggests that they exist precisely because of different ways of seeing the Bible. I view it as "the worst case scenario" (very vague, BTW) because it is credible evidence to me that, by the alterations that have historically occurred to specifically the Bible over time, and the aforementioned various genealogies of belief stemming from the primary belief system, that none of the current versions has perfected the system, and that they each claim that believers of the other systems are not 'saved' speaks volumes of their own intolerance.
Did you realize there is more than 1 way of seeing the bible, and that you will view it as the worse case scenario and present it as such, to further you own personal agenda?
I'm not forcing anyone to go along with my beliefs. I'm placing them out there to be argued back, so that I might acheive more convincing arguments. Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis, which becomes the new thesis until the introduction of yet another antithesis, ad infinitum. See Marx for more.
Is it possible, that what you lined out is simply majority thinks/believes is right and the only right? And tell me, how is that different than when the majority were christians and made people go along with that?
If someone attempted to kill you, would you not attempt to force them not to? I argue that forcing someone to accept the notion of not harming someone is not forcing at all, but attempting to communicate reason. It would also seem that you are attempting to 'force' me to believe your above-stated claim, thus, if accurate, negating the effectiveness of your own argument.
Does it occur to you that it's not so much what you force people to do, but the act of forcing people that is wrong?
Because in my imagination, the truth IS the authority, and the dissenters are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept it. If Truth is the authority, what would you call those that refuse to accept the truth?
You say they will question the authority. Don't you think that would consist of taking authority as truth, rather than truth as authority. And if so, then how does that make you different than whats going on today, and what makes you different?
I have only noticed your stated questions once, and have proceeded to answer them to the best of understanding. I have read every post you have made on this specific thread and attempted to understand your point of view. I have mentioned before that your lack of offering a solution is apparent, and accusing others of their lack of solutions only includes yourself among their numbers. In my belief, it is possible to allow a Utopian society to exist, ruled by self-government, something that so many people I have debated has said is not possible, but that is because they were brought up by the very establishment which seeks to convince us that we cannot. Living and letting live would be a victorious middle ground if those that wrest control of us would relinquish that control. I apologize if I inferred that I wish to have control over others. As appealing as the concept is, I have the capacity to override that desire in favor of the concept I have attempted to promote: The value of the whole over it's parts.
On a side note, why are the questions I've asked many times always ignored by the people who support this stuff? Does the truth really hurt that bad? Are you guys frustrated because you can see the problem, but can't see a solution that doesn't involve controlling and forcing your will on others? Is it really that hard to live and let live? Is 1 life not enough to have control over?