TheMusicTheory

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. TheMusicTheory

    Millennium wait for 87 years

    Not quite. Because there was no year "0" on the gregorian calendar (1BC went right into 1AD). The first post-BC millennium began in the year 1 AD (Or CE, as one prefers), and thus ended with the conclusion of the year 1000. 1001 began the next, concluding in 2000. 2001 began the next.
  2. TheMusicTheory

    The European "Union"

    "That's roughly analogous to here in the US, hearing what California is going to do about Missouri." I'm not sure it is, though. The United States is a federal republic that is broken into states. The states have a certain level of autonomy but are ultimately under the rule of the federal core. The EU is a much looser union of independent countries, not states. The EU is not a "country", it is a partnership, and thus isn't really a political entity on its own (nor was it meant to be). It has created an *economic* union, yes, but that's about the extent of it, and countries are free to leave it at any time. The formation of the EU was all about economics. The goal was never to take away the autonomy of the member nations.
  3. TheMusicTheory

    Campaigns beginning again

    Again, where did the health care law come from? Congress. The President signed it, yes...but that bill never gets to his desk if Congress never passes it. The solution to the (in your opinion) problem is congressional.
  4. TheMusicTheory

    Amish Saints

    That may be, but certainly they are still "Culturally Amish".
  5. TheMusicTheory

    Campaigns beginning again

    The Executive Branch of government has almost no say or control whatsoever over economic issues. Money is the domain of the legislature and always has been (which *includes* Bush, so all the bashers of his presidency based on economics are off-base as well). People assign powers to the presidency that it simply does not have on a regular basis, because the president is the most visible member of the government. ...but in actuality, the Executive Branch is fairly weak domestically. This is why candidates who make promises about "jobs" and other economic issues are pretty much making things up (and this happens with literally *every* candidate in *every* party). They're playing to the masses who aren't read up on how our government functions. The most the president can do is veto a bill he doesn't like...but that can be turned around in congress. It is the legislature that holds the most domestic power, and that is where one should truly focus if one wants to change anything. - Presidents cannot control the money supply (the Federal Reserve has that power) - Globalization means that a great deal of our economy is subject to foreign market shifts - Presidents can't even dictate their own budgets: Congress has final authority. - Presidents have direct control over less than 9 percent of our annual budget, which is reserved for "discretionary spending" The campaigns of late about "job creation" are a complete farce, and everyone is guilty. Presidents have almost zero influence over "job creation"...but they will keep pretending they do, because people believe it.
  6. TheMusicTheory

    Campaigns beginning again

    A great deal of the reason for this, other than our elections being quite frequent, is that here in the US, we have a culture of "otherism". American Politics is tribal. It is very much an "US vs. THEM" mindset. It is instilled in us from the start. We treat politics like we treat sports. We're on one team, and other people are on the opposite team and THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS WRONG! ARG! I AM SO ANGRY AT THOSE PEOPLE! It's nearly bloodsport at this point. American culture revolves almost entirely around the concept of 'teams'. It's your high school football team vs. the rival's, it's Ford vs. Chevy, it's Coke vs. Pepsi, Cats vs. Dogs, Liberals vs. Conservatives, etc. Anything that we can latch onto and identify with becomes "ours", and the alternative is an affront to all we stand for. Grey areas? Never heard of 'em. Everything is broken down into a black and white argument. Thus, differing with "us" on any one thing is tantamount to differing with us on ALL things. There is no in-between: you're either with us or against us. This, more than any other facet of our culture, is why things get so ridiculous in our politics; if the 'wrong' team does something good, then that thing MUST be bad. If that thing is NOT bad, you must find a way to frame it as bad, or risk looking like one of "them". You wind up with people who actually revel in ignorance of multiple viewpoints and see anyone who would DARE oppose ANY view that they hold as an absolute affront to "God, Country, and the American Way ". This is why America can only ever have a two-party system, and why it is almost always a very close split. It's the reason you sometimes see conservative people use terms like "LIEbral" and "Libtard", or liberal folk decry conservatives as ignorant hillbillies or worse. Painting is easiest when you use a wide brush, after all. Consider also how the media works here in America, and how thoroughly it controls the narrative. Realize that in America you can pick a political side and then, if you wish, never consume ANY media that doesn't fit your political bias. You can go an entire day, from waking until bed, consuming nothing but 'opinion' pieces and listening to the talking heads do nothing but re-enforce your point of view. 24/7 news channels, of which there are several, mostly cover politics, and are usually filled almost entirely with appeals to emotion, a mix of outrage and figurative cries of "Ha! Look how dumb and wrong those other people are!". You are never required to be exposed to views that are different than yours if you do not wish to be. You can 'otherize' the living heck out of the people you disagree with, radicalize your beliefs, and never have any exposure to the other side that isn't one of anger or mocking. YOU are right because you're part of party X, which is opposite of party Y, who is *always* wrong. And, sadly, I fear American education isn't good enough for the general masses to realize a fallacy this obvious (considering what passes for political discourse these days, I think I'm right). In short: American Politics is Tribal Warfare, only much, MUCH worse.
  7. TheMusicTheory

    14 year old daughter doesn't want to go to church what do I do?

    Please feel free to take this with a very large grain of salt. As a former Christian (and current agnostic), this is something that I actually went through first-hand. For years, I dreaded going to church on Sundays. In my mind it was simply wasted time on weekends, which was precious to me since school is a Monday-Friday thing. It wasn't a choice, however. My parents were definitely in the "you're going to go because you don't have a choice" mold. It wasn't until my Junior year of high school that I even started to sort of like it...and that was largely because I became a part of the church orchestra. Through music, I was able to enjoy my time there (which makes a lot of sense when you consider what I now do for a living). I didn't become agnostic until several years later and for completely unrelated reasons. My younger *brother*, on the other hand... He, too, is agnostic. However, unlike me, it is very, very clear that a large part of his pushing away from religion was the fact that he was forced to attend for so long. Our personalities are different, and he didn't have the musical outlet that I do, and thus he never found his "reason" to go. He began to resent being forced and I have zero doubt that this played a part in his eventual rejection of religion altogether (Despite what some may think, I never actively encouraged him one way or the other, feeling that he should make his own choices about what he believed and didn't believe). I would say to be careful. People are different, and they react and respond to things differently. While forcing someone to go to church might work for one, it might have serious consequences for another (at least in terms of their personal faith). There is no one "right" answer that can cover all of us. I would engage with your daughter about what she doesn't like about church and see if you can address some of those things. I wasn't Mormon growing up, so I know little about the practices of your normal church days, but perhaps there is something, like music with me, that could get her involved?
  8. TheMusicTheory

    Was the interview really that bad?

    I saw you invoke Beck a lot, which probably should have been a clue, so, yeah, that one's on me.
  9. TheMusicTheory

    Was the interview really that bad?

    You seem to be having just as hard a time as the interviewer understanding that Jesus is a prominent figure in the Islamic faith...and thus it makes perfect sense for him to write about it. I'm sort of baffled where the confusion lies, to be honest.
  10. TheMusicTheory

    Is there a god

    It isn't, though, which is more or less the point. If I walk into a McDonald's and claim there "is no hamburger", an employee would merely need to turn around, grab a hamburger patty, and present it to me. That is empirical evidence of the existence of the hamburger, and continued denial of its existence would be foolish. Claiming there is no god on a faith-based forum (no matter how rudely it was done) is not the same, as there is no empirical proof of it either way. The two scenarios are very, very different. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Please understand that I am not attempting to be snippy or snide in any way. I am merely positing and debating.
  11. TheMusicTheory

    Is there a god

    I was simply emphasizing as one might do in speech. Apologies. That is something I tend to do (type as though I'm speaking, with capital letters to indicate where my voice might offer emphasis), there was no special or additional meaning intended.
  12. TheMusicTheory

    Is there a god

    Ah, we were approaching separate questions and I didn't realize it. That is my fault. I mis-read the original intent.
  13. TheMusicTheory

    Is there a god

    Understand, I am not actually defending the OP. I believe his post left little open to discussion and I never like that.
  14. TheMusicTheory

    Is there a god

    Yes, exactly! And so it is with faith in deities. As has been pointed out, proving a negative is nigh impossible, but because one can come up with limitless non-provable statements it is nearly useless as a argumentative basis. One's ideas are formed by what one accepts as evidence, and we all have different ideas about what we believe "evidence" to be. My initial point was that claiming those who don't believe in a god have a greater responsibility on their shoulders is in error. If anything its a total wash one way or the other.
  15. TheMusicTheory

    Is there a god

    I think you are arguing semantics (though why is the assumption that the teapot is man-made? Can you prove that it is? Can you prove that it isn't, for that matter?). I could as easily claim, as Douglas Adams once did, that at the bottom of a well in an English garden there exist a group of invisible, super-natural fairies. Can you prove to me that the fairies don't exist? Does your ability to not DIS-prove them make you believe that they actually do exist? Though I was hesitant to use the following, I might as well: Can you similarly prove to me that Odin does not exist? Or Thor? Can you prove that the "spiritual feelings' some claim they receive from their god are not, in fact, given to them by another? The idea here is that it is easy to make claims that are impossible to falsify, and being able to state one of them is not a truly compelling argument.