EPTWorried for kids exposed to the net - Page 2
| Blogs > Ixas |
|
InTheFade
United States1721 Posts
| ||
|
Pieguy314
Canada262 Posts
| ||
|
Tenryu
United States565 Posts
HAHAHA | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Ignorance is a manifestation of this laziness. Anyways, I agree with you. This is a very negative influence upon society. What we need to do is teach our kids to use their brains, and how things function. | ||
|
h3r1n6
Iceland2039 Posts
"Daddy, did the humans live together with dinosaurs?" "Yes son. In fact, Jesus was riding on a raptor in his time." | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
lets look at just ONE and current example: BP. the company is getting away surprisingly easy for the huge amount of damage they caused. here is why: > people were not aware of the neglect of security measures by BP > people were not aware of the emount of damage (economical, environmental) the effect of such neglect could have > BP uses an oil dispersant (corexit) so that the amount of oil that people get to see is vastly different from the amount causing damage > BP hides that they stocked up on corexit prior to the disaster, that corexit is banned from use in the UK (less harmful dispersants exist!) and that a former board member of BP is sitting in the board of corexit supplier nalco > BP, on national news, lies about the amount of oil that is spilled and denies knowledge and existence of underwater oil plumes (again, people cant be mad about what they dont see) > republicans: "drill, baby, drill!", "must deregulate!" all of that is misinformation, withholding information and lies. nearly every problem we have in this world is directly rooted on ignorance. clearly, no amount of (voluntary) porn can live up to that. people should take it more seriously. somehow they think that ignorance on lower levels is acceptable, but ignorance is ignorance is behaviour and is the same regardless of where it is applied, and the more ignorance you have the more acceptable it is for other people to be ignorant, too. nobody likes to be the only one everyone else disagrees with, right? | ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On June 15 2010 06:53 enzym wrote: let me put it this way. porn might lead to the decay of public decency and morals in the eyes of some, but ignorance leads to the decay of freedom, scientific and technological advance, the government or any other institutions that hold authority, the environment, ... lets look at just ONE and current example: BP. the company is getting away surprisingly easy for the huge amount of damage they caused. here is why: > people were not aware of the neglect of security measures by BP > people were not aware of the emount of damage (economical, environmental) the effect of such neglect could have > BP uses an oil dispersant (corexit) so that the amount of oil that people get to see is vastly different from the amount causing damage > BP hides that they stocked up on corexit prior to the disaster, that corexit is banned from use in the UK (less harmful dispersants exist!) and that a former board member of BP is sitting in the board of corexit supplier nalco > BP, on national news, lies about the amount of oil that is spilled and denies knowledge and existence of underwater oil plumes (again, people cant be mad about what they dont see) > republicans: "drill, baby, drill!", "must deregulate!" all of that is misinformation, withholding information and lies. nearly every problem we have in this world is directly rooted on ignorance. clearly, no amount of (voluntary) porn can live up to that. people should take it more seriously. somehow they think that ignorance on lower levels is acceptable, but ignorance is ignorance is behaviour and is the same regardless of where it is applied, and the more ignorance you have the more acceptable it is for other people to be ignorant, too. nobody likes to be the only one everyone else disagrees with, right? I don't think the problem is ignorance as it is people who are ignorant of something try to make what should be sound, logical decisions about issues without knowing anything or would try to convince someone to make their decision for them who has more power. But everyone is ignorant of something, and sometimes it really isn't directly ignorance that's the problem, but that what someone does know is in fact, incorrect. Like, KKK members know things about who they hate, it's just not all of it is right, so they make illogical and irrational decisions based on something that isn't even right that's the problem, and people get hurt in the process. Although, you can argue that even if what they knew was right, would they stop being racist? Maybe not, because they have been habituated to hate somehow. I think lack of logical thinking is more of an issue. Although I agree with your example, but people can't help it because they're being lied too. | ||
|
ella_guru
Canada1741 Posts
On June 15 2010 04:46 Cloud wrote: I don't think that "knowing" about evolution or that the Earth revolves around the Sun is very useful. I've never applied that knowledge except in debates over the Internet  That's why I think it's hard to convince a theist of common knowledge like that - it's not very practical. On that same point and contrary to the belief of a lot of atheists, I don't think theists are any less smart, in general, than their counterparts.I feel you man. I think as long as we are thinking and _discussing_ ideas , lots of great things can come from it. It's not a matter of trying to convince someone your way is better, but sharing view points to arrive at new ideas on your side of the fence. Malcolm Muggeridge said something to the effect of "knowledge for knowledge's sake is an empty pursuit" I like that quote! | ||
|
Ixas
930 Posts
| ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On June 15 2010 07:34 RageOverdose wrote: I don't think the problem is ignorance as it is people who are ignorant of something try to make what should be sound, logical decisions about issues without knowing anything or would try to convince someone to make their decision for them who has more power. But everyone is ignorant of something, and sometimes it really isn't directly ignorance that's the problem, but that what someone does know is in fact, incorrect. Like, KKK members know things about who they hate, it's just not all of it is right, so they make illogical and irrational decisions based on something that isn't even right that's the problem, and people get hurt in the process. Although, you can argue that even if what they knew was right, would they stop being racist? Maybe not, because they have been habituated to hate somehow. I think lack of logical thinking is more of an issue. Although I agree with your example, but people can't help it because they're being lied too. yes, thats exactly the point. things like that creationist museum for example further dumb people down intentionally instead of educating them, which is what they should do. thats why i agree with the OP, and porn would have to go a long way before it could be considered as harmful as that. | ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On June 15 2010 07:54 enzym wrote: yes, thats exactly the point. things like that creationist museum for example further dumb people down intentionally instead of educating them, which is what they should do. thats why i agree with the OP, and porn would have to go a long way before it could be considered as harmful as that. Creationists tend to reject studies dealing in evolution and Big Bang (or anything that they infer says God is impossible), and the actual scientists that do that (let's not argue if they can even be called as such, that's irrelevant) can be a problem if they inhibit other scientists' studies. But I don't see the big problem. If they aren't inhibiting other studies, then I can't justify a need to fix it. Not that I can really justify a need for Creationist study either, even as a theist. As for other people who just learn about the discoveries or studies, they may not have any effect on anything. If a person believes the Big Bang is not true, but spends their whole life operating business networks, that's probably very irrelevant information in the context of their life. And actually, porn can have a similar effect of "dumbing" people down by creating unrealistic sexual expectations or unrealistic standards for women in the eyes of men, or maybe the other way around too when women watch porn. | ||
|
XDawn
Canada4040 Posts
Would we be farther ahead in technology by now? | ||
|
ella_guru
Canada1741 Posts
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one | ||
|
coltrane
Chile988 Posts
Having all that clockwork machinery and using it to take out the curiosity from people is like being part of the wealthy political class in any third world country, a bad ass black joke. Sad, but so much hypocrisy that I can just laugh. Really bitter laugh IMO edit:ella_guru just owned the thread, shame at posting something after that living lesson. Never stop surprising about how much that song says everything I trully believe in. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
too late for what? to save john lenin? imagine is like the best song ever | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On June 15 2010 03:55 Impervious wrote: The person realizes that there is no way of currently proving that there is no god, however, there is more than enough evidence out there to show that the gods people believe in right now are fallacies..... However, the belief is that there is no god. That is how it separates itself from both atheist and agnostic. It is like a mesh of the two. A good way to look at is by examining Russell's Teapot. Some other useful quotes: I would argue that you are simply an atheist. I think the term agnosticism was created as a "soft atheism" for those who didn't wish to offend back when the term atheist was severely taboo (it still is, to a certain extent). Atheists do not "know" that there is no god. That in itself would be an act of faith. If I'm to generalize for a minute, they are rationalists above all else. By its very definition, supernatural phenomenon can be neither proven nor disproven. The only logical stance is to suspend belief in a higher power if no evidence for one exists. Either you believe in a god in the absence of evidence (faith) or you do not. The view that all atheists have some sort of blind devotion to the concept that there could never be a higher power is a straw man set up by fundamentalists to give the movement a dogmatic feel similar to their own religious regime. The nature of science does not rest upon unfounded assumptions and rigid predispositions; it is our best guess as to how the universe functions based on the evidence we have right now and it is subject to change as new evidence arises. tldr: Atheism = Agnosticism You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not. On June 15 2010 04:46 Cloud wrote: I don't think theists are any less smart, in general, than their counterparts. Statistically, they are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
| ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On June 15 2010 10:13 krndandaman wrote: Aren't the simple definitions of each: Atheist - Believes god/gods do not exist. Agnostic - Does not believe in a god/gods, but is unsure if one exists or not. My point is that most non-believers (identifying as atheist or agnostic) have at least a very slight uncertainty about the presence of a higher power. Of course one could exist if the rules of the game are that this god is a magical being that is everywhere and nowhere and we have no concrete way of perceiving it. I don't think that agnosticism should exist as a terminology because it implies that atheism involves dogmatic belief that a god cannot exist. Atheism is scientific and it certainly does not imply this. I am an atheist and I concede that it is obviously impossible to disprove the existence of a god, but due to the staggering amount of evidence and rational argument I have seen against the literal interpretations of most major religions, I simply judge the probability of any god existing to be under 0.00001%, negligible. I cannot know that a meteor will not fall on my head in the next 10 seconds (which it rightly should, the heretic that I am) but I consider the possibility to be so small that I don't even need to think about it. On June 15 2010 10:13 krndandaman wrote: about the graph on the right, why is it that they only surveyed the range from near-retards to people of average intelligence? the person with the highest IQ is 108 Each dot represents a country. | ||
| ||
