On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 12:56 AM, TekBudda <tekbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Having said that, we need better oversight. NSA employees have coined a > > term for the misuse of the NSA infrastructure for "romantic" purposes > > (LOVEINT). This is not a problem unique to the NSA. The RCMP officer > > likely abused his position of power and this is exactly why we need > > oversight of our military and policing institutions (well actually all > > of our institutions, even the religious ones). > > Sorry Gustin...fail on your part here. I can only really effectively > speak for the Christian side of things, but I would imagine that most > religions would be similar with relation to governance. There should be > no governmental oversight of religious institutions as there are > specific regulations against such thing. To coin the popular phrase > "separation of church & state" in this instance IS NOT I repeat > emphatically...IS NOT for the protection of society or the government > from the church but the exact opposite. It is to protect the government > from interfering in religious institutions & deciding how they are to be > run. > > I was referring more to a general oversight, not necessarily by the government. Having said that, no institution should be above the law, and yes we the people need to be protected (and be able to protect ourselves) from religious institutions as well. I am a former Catholic, and the Catholic has seriously failed to adequately deal with the child abuse perpetrated by their members. This is not a problem unique to Catholicism, and a proper government serves and protects it's citizens. Separation of church and state is a complicated concept, with many interpretations and implementations. There is no magic rule or perfect solution. This is not to say that there is no oversight for religious > organizations. Pretty much every denomination has sometimes multiple > levels of infrastructure in place (i.e. local, regional, denominational, > etc. boards, committees, etc, etc.) to oversee the doctrinal & other > activities of that denomination. Part of this is to ensure that abuses > of power DO NOT happen & DO NOT go unpunished if they do. There are > deliberate & intentional safeguards, checks & balances, etc. put in > place to avoid not only the appearances of but the perpetration of evil. > This does not mean that these things don't happen...they do...but > statistically they are the exception to the norm. This does not in any > way excuse them as abuses from any agency to anyone for any reason are > unacceptable...but there are specific things put into place. This is > one thing I think society can...regardless of their theistic > inclinations...can actually learn from religious groups in general. > > I am generally suspicious of any internal process. Self policing just does not work. > And please...no one even attempt to bring up the whole catholic > thing...because they do not represent all Christians. > > > One comment for Budda. Ad hominem attacks on individuals (aka name > > calling) does not actually lend any weight or legitimacy to your > > arguments. Always focus on the topics and arguments that people are > > making and not the people themselves. This is a common logical fallacy > > that humans are pretty much wired to make. Having said that we are > > smart enough to be able to recognize this and do better. A related > > fallacy are the class of arguments known as "straw man" (or Aunt Sally > > for our UK visitors) arguments. > > > > In your specific example, there is functionally no difference between > > Obama and Bush as these programs and their abuses transcend both > > presidencies and their political parties. There are a large number of > > people involved and you cannot pin it on one person. You also cannot > > fix the problem by running a popularity contest every 4 years. You > > certainly can not have intelligent and productive debate with name > calling. > > With all due respect I neither asked for nor require your correction of > my statements...nor do I require what I will choose to accept as a > friendly explanation of logical discourse & not a demeaning pat-on-head > rebuke. I call them as I see them based on careful examination of the > evidence. > > The manner in which you chose to phrase your opinion matters. By clicking send you invited a response, which I honestly gave. The manner in which we choose our words matters. We are literally wired to make these mistakes, and it saddens me that this fact is not taught. Every one of us has to work hard not to fall prey to our nature. My reply was not in fact a condescending pat on the head, but instead a warning. These are not just simple interesting tidbits of logical reasoning, but are in fact very important for helping us learn and incorporate new ideas. This is how we learn, grow, and make a better world. When we engage our emotions, particularly anger, we become blind to information that does not fit our current world view. We dismiss out of hand facts or data that may cause us to re-evaluate our ideas and positions. We see examples of this every day on Fox and MSNBC. They use words in ways that engage the emotions of their target audiences, virtually ensuring that no one actually learns anything. We like to have our views confirmed, and these mass media echo chambers cynically take advantage of that. This is bullshit of the purest kind and is a mind poison, plain and simple. You can choose to do whatever you like, just as I can choose to respond. While I respect the various positions in government office I do not > necessarily respect the people that hold some of those positions. In > the case of the POTUS he is well deserving of the moniker(s) I (and > others) ascribed as he has done more to screw & potentially cause > irreparable damage to not only his country but others including Canada > as well. He has set the causes of privacy, liberty, industry, the > economy, equality, race relations, safety & myriads of other aspects of > society back decades if not centuries. > > It takes far more than 4 or even 8 years to do this kind of damage. The 2008 financial crisis has roots in decisions made in the 70s, with a lot of the groundwork laid in the 80s (there was a crisis and a bailout then, so this should not have been a surprise). I am not apologizing for the current president, he does in fact have a lot to answer for. There are a large number of people with a lot to answer for, though few if any will be called to do so. Your last sentence in that paragraph is unnecessarily dramatic, and does not help to identify problems that can be attacked. This sort of thing is all over, in fact tune in to Fox News at pretty much any time of day and you will find someone saying nearly that exact thing. Yes...I agree...no party/individual is infallible & perfect & can have > elements of blame ascribed to their administrations, but the truth on > the matter is that whoever sits in that particular seat of power > (wherever it may be) IS responsible & MUST BE held account...even if > they had nothing to do with it. Yes...appropriate blame for certain > things must be prescribed to the appropriate people. > > First, everyone is to blame. Also blame gets us nowhere. The problems are deeper and more systemic. "Appropriate blame" for the "appropriate people" is a generic statement that makes for a good sound bite. The devil really is in the details, and how we go about this as a society is the part that will take the hard work. > It is like buying a used outhouse...you may not have filled it up, but > you own it & it is your responsibility now. The key difference is that > as much of a moron (as he was called & is still called today) as Bush > was he still took ownership of the position & tried to effect positive > change. O's entire administration has been built around blaming Bush & > instead of trying to create positive change has done even more damage on > a global scale. Case in point...the current administration in the us > has added more debt to the country since 2008 then ALL of the previous > POTUS's since the creation of the us. > > Bush et al. played the exact the same games. You can make this same criticism of at least the last several presidents. It all depends on what kind filter you view the world. For some Obama is the best president ever, for others he is the devil incarnate. Both of those positions are wrong, it does not matter who you are actually talking about. > To relate this all back to the original topic. This has now made > everyone who holds particular views; uses particular technologies; > voices certain opinions; etc. in effect a criminal. A quote I heard > recently...and I don't know the exact words but the idea is the > same...was "I certainly do not view Snowden as a hero, but I do have a > problem viewing him as a traitor." > He exposed & brought to light what was going on with our blessings for > who knows how long. It was the kind of thing that everyone acknowledged > but no one did anything about. The argument could be made if privacy > actually does exist & if it is nothing more then a concept. But because > we have let it go on so long, does that mean we loose our right to > challenge it now? I think almost everyone can agree that the answer is > emphatically...NO! > I could go on....but I imagine most people have already deleted this > message & written me off anyways...sooo...why bother. :-) > > It matters if you actually care about making the world a better place. Not only did I read this far but I responded along the way. That at least could be viewed as a good thing. Some advice I was given many years ago, was to seek out and genuinely engage with opposing views. In this way you can bring your own views into sharper focus, and maybe even learn something. Sometimes I change my view altogether, sometimes more than once on a given topic. Ok...last thing...I think at the core everyone is saying the same thing, > we are just coming out it from a different frame of reference & with out > own set of filters. I can't recall the name but there was a movie out a > few years ago that had eight people who all saw the same event but each > had different versions. Something to do with an assassination. > > I am not sure about the movie, but there has been a lot of research in the past 30 years on this very topic. We not only perceive events differently, but we remember differently as well. Our memories are not like video recordings even though they feel that way. You can actually reprogram people to remember things differently from moment to moment. In fact marketing teams do this very thing on a daily basis. Just a sample of one of the ways our perceptions can misled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness This kind of research and insight into what it really means to be human is starting to become popular. I have hopes that the next big thing will be us learning about, well us. I suspect that before we can fix our political and economic systems, we will need to have a better understanding of our strengths and weaknesses. Cheers, __ G
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list clug-talk@clug.ca http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
