TheMusicTheory
-
Posts
34 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheMusicTheory
-
-
"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.
-
No...they very much influence job creation. They sign into law bills that either foster economic growth or discourage it. President Obama is not a business friendly President. Laws like the Health Care Law are punitive in nature and have a negative ripple affect through the economy. Tax policy, regulation, etc are all drivers of economic growth and bad policy makes decisions to to do business outside the US more attractive.
American businesses are more de-leveraged than anytime since the 1950's. Coincidence? I think not, they fear the damage that has and will occur as a result of Obama and his progressive, statist tendencies.
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.
-
That may be, but certainly they are still "Culturally Amish".
-
The economic bust was in 2008 and the economy has been out of recession for at least three years. While not a sturdy recovery, a recovery none the less. I didn't vote for our current President, but, whatever bust anyone is experiencing currently, he and his ilk are at fault.
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.
-
You Americans seem to LOVE elections. It seems like every year there's one. The worst part is, because we get American TV up here, we are bombarded with all the election comercials. UGH!! Please tell me the next one is a few years off!!!
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.
-
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?
-
You must not have read the whole thread. I explained my views on this very clearly.I saw you invoke Beck a lot, which probably should have been a clue, so, yeah, that one's on me.
-
Who knows?
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.
-
I guess I could walk into McDonald's and say to the employees that there is no hamburger, which is the same thing as saying there is no God on a faith based forum.
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.
-
Also would you clarify for me why you capitalized "DIS"? I am not sure I appropriately understood this meaning.
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.
-
Ah, we were approaching separate questions and I didn't realize it. That is my fault. I mis-read the original intent.
-
Instead the OP presented it as an open and shut case that everyone with any kind of logic and reason should just innately agree with.
Understand, I am not actually defending the OP. I believe his post left little open to discussion and I never like that.
-
Unless I'm mistaken your teapot ploy falls under an argument from ignorance. What I always found interesting about that particular fallacy is that claiming, "I can't observe the teapot, therefore it does not exist" and, "You don't have proof the teapot doesn't exist, therefore it does." are flip sides of the same coin. If there is an undetectable teapot in orbit, logically speaking, I can't make a determination on if it exists or not. Though often in those cases people will anyway based on some other metric (be it testimony and faith, or perceived probability and parsimony).
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.
-
Not sure if this fits. The "Teapot" is a man made item, created by man, which you say, is somehow orbiting the sun at a degree which a man made china teapot would easily burn.
Nope, I don't see the issue. Do you have a better analogy to prove your classic fallacy?
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.
-
Those who wish to claim there is no God have a huge burden of proving a negative, which means that they must prove it in every case (not just the ones that are easy for them to do). It also means that they can not ignore or dismiss the evidence of testimony. (as much as they might like to)
Respectfully, this is a bit of a classic fallacy. The "Teapot" ploy.
If I were to claim that there exists, orbiting the sun within the asteroid belt, a perfectly constructed, small china teapot, floating in space but that is invisible to telescopes and can shield itself from sight...could you prove me wrong?
The idea is that I could make any number of claims that cannot be proven...but because you cannot DISprove them they somehow have merit as legit thoughts. You see the issue, then.
-
In my particular instance, though you may not be looking for it, I grew up in a Christian church and stopped going because I stopped believing in a deity. This was a slow and gradual process that played out over several years and involved much study and contemplation. I reached the conclusion I hold today, and thus continued presence at a Church became unimportant (for obvious reasons).
I am not a unique case, of course, and this is something that happens to many.
-
The very long leap in between those two must be where the debate is at. I don't see how God knowing everything means we are predestined.
Understand that as an agnostic I don't hold to the ideas, but merely find them interesting.
The argument is that if God knows everything then he knows precisely every choice we are going to make. Thus, are those choices truly free choices? Are we actually free to make different choices? Would doing so refute that God is omniscient since we will have made a choice contrary to his perception?
In other words, "God puts us on the earth and knows exactly, from birth to death, every choice we will make...thus we do not have the free will to make true choices."
You are correct that that is definitely the sticking point.
-
A mild point that "recovering agnostic" makes it sound a bit like we have a disease like alcoholism.
That aside:
The Calvinist model is actually a rather interesting rational logical jump. The argument goes a little like this:
God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
An omniscient being can see all things in time and space, past, present and future simultaneously.
An omniscient being thus knows precisely how all of time will unfold.
Thus, we are predestined to our fates.
It's a fascinating study.
-
I am quite familiar with Michael Cremo's particular brand of pseudoscience. He is, of course, not a scientist himself (nor is his associate, Thompson) but a Hindu Creationist Author. A writer.
I have read his book, but I will leave the rebuttal to those far more qualified than I:
Review: Forbidden Archaeology's Impact | NCSE
Forbidden Archaeology: Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena
Cremo is well-known in the scientific community for vast leaps of logic based on sketchy-at-best and sometimes completely false premises, and he does not suffer criticism well. Indeed, the entire book was written as a sort of "Oh yeah?? Well boo on you!" to his critics.
I will concur that the read was interesting...but I think we may have found it interesting for different reasons.
-
Something to think about. Joseph Smith said that the earth was formed from other broken up planets. Matter unorganized. Another thought I have had is that Adam may have been in the Garden of Eden for a long time before partaking of the fruit that made him mortal and started time as we know it. Also scientific theory is just that. Theory. For instance the Leaky's say modern man originated in the Odivai Gorge in Africa because they found the remains of Lucy, a according to them "missing Link". But there is in England plenty of evidence of modern man that dates to the same time period. They ignore that because it doesn't fit in with ther excepted ideas. Really I dont think anyone knows and the Lord hasn't revealed a difinitive answer. That doesent mean we shouldn't interest ourselve in such questions. Keep an open mind
I think there is some confusion here about what the word "Theory" actually means in a scientific context.
Gravity is also a "Theory". Relativity is a "Theory". Scientific Theories codify facts, they are a collection of facts given a name. The word I think you were looking for is Hypothesis.
As for evidence of modern man in England, do you have links to any research in that area?
-
I agree up to a point. I agree that the FEDERAL government should not be involved at all with the marital contract except as an overall definition to judge what constitutes a family in Immigration Law.
But, I posit that State Government can do whatever they want to do with marriage in state law.
What is the difference? All that does is drop the issue down one level. It's still government. The government should not be involved at all, especially if it is not prepared to be equalist.
-
The true issue, here, is one of government.
In the US, the government grants certain rights to people who are married. Tax breaks, visitation rights in emergencies, and other things. When gay people talk of the inequality, this is what they mean, and this is why the issue is such a big deal right now.
Personally, I feel that the government should not be involved at ALL with the idea of marriage. At most, the government should be granting "Domestic Partnerships" or something similar. If a religion wants to marry people, then that should be their arena.
-
Yet, of the large monothesistic religions, only Christianity fits this mold. Judaism self-identifies as a religion for its tribe. Rabbis are actually instructed to initially dissuade proselytes three times. Islam, while it can be "missionary," can only be well understood in Arabic. One of the first tasks of a sincere convert to Islam would be to learn the language, so s/he could read the actual Qur'an. All "translations" are deemed paraphrases, and not considered actual scripture.
I think it is prudent to point out that for over a thousand years, Christianity had the same caveat that Islam does now: one had to learn the language to understand. In this case, Latin.
The Bible was solely in Latin for hundreds of years (minus the Aramaic origin of a few of the texts) and in the sole possession of the Catholic church. Comparatively speaking it has only recently been translated into other languages. Islam is about 700 years younger than Christianity.
-
There are a lot of member theories as to why in particular we have been told to avoid coffee and tea, but ultimately it is because the Lord has counseled us to avoid coffee and tea in a commandment called the Word of Wisdom (You can read it here: Doctrine and Covenants 89* ). The phrase contained in the actual scripture is "hot drinks" which has been interpreted by those in authority in the Church to do so as meaning coffee and tea. It was originally given by way of counsel by the Lord but it was later accepted by the Church as binding upon it's members, and so members of the Church have covenanted to obey it.
You can find some additional explanations on it here: Word of Wisdom if you scroll down it links to talks and study helps on the subject.
Perfect! Thank you for the links.
Millennium wait for 87 years
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
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.