When people are allowed to say idiotic things unchallenged

Let it go, because Becky isn't going to change her mind. What difference does it make to you if somebody believes or thinks differently?

If after responding
A. No Becky please go buy a calculator 2+2=4 not 5.
Perhaps you are not thinking straight at the moment, and need another nap

Becky responded, ''No WTF, I know 2+2=5. I'm thinking straight, thinking you should go straight to hell.''

WTF is WTF to do? That is what WTF is dealing with and talking about. Originally Posted by WTF

No WTF, you have me all wrong. That is when I tell you to talk to the paw

Let it go, because Becky isn't going to change her mind. Originally Posted by Ansley

You got that right Ans.At this rate I have decided to convince myself that 2+2 does equal 5 just to annoy WTF a little bit more this evening

No WTF, you have me all wrong. That is when I tell you to talk to the paw Originally Posted by Becky

No I know you won't but you were not who I was speaking of!

I agree we should all talk to the paw

or sarah palin. but that would have been also too obvious :-)
btw: is she or is she not speaking in tongues? I mean sarah... Originally Posted by ninasastri

Here is what Ms. Palin really is:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-31-2011/from-russia-with-gov

You got that right Ans. At this rate I have decided to convince myself that 2+2 does equal 5 just to annoy WTF a little bit more this evening Originally Posted by Becky

If Beck and Ed say it's "Five" I'm on their side!

What about tolerance vs intolerance. We, in this society, are allowed to believe in whatever we want. Whether we believe in monotheism or polytheism or nothing at all, we have an obligation to allow the individual to believe how they choose as long as it doesn't interfere with another persons' viewpoints. Some of us don't have a faith in any organized religion. Some of us do not believe at all. And some have a faith that supercedes anothers veiws.

Who are we to tell someone that what they believe is wrong? Who are you or anyone else to tell those that have a faith beyond your beliefs that they are wrong? I've known people who believe so strongly you cannot change their mind. There are those that only believe, "just in case," but they still have the right to believe in any way they choose.

I see a faith in a belief beyond religion that, to me, is even more frightening than religious ideology. When people start believing in one idea that goes beyond the pale, to me, it is frightening. Take Global Warming for example; some people believe in it so much that they would forgo any technology to live in a tree as a protest to manmade global warming, while others, have been bombing natural gas pipelines while there is a media blackout. The same goes for the ultra right who would rather bomb an abortion clinic instead of lobbying their politicians.

Some of them take data that fits their belief and completely dimiss or omit other data that could impact the way they think. Take the poles shifting within the earth itself. They recently announced that they had to change the glide path of airport runways to match the new magnetic lines. Could the pole shifting or even solar activity affect weather on earth? Absolutely, but it's dismissed by those that have an agenda.

Who's right and who's wrong? Are we supposed to indoctronate someone to a particular belief or educate them to make an informed decision? At what point is it education and at what point does it become indoctrination?

It's a social network, religion was Facebook before Facebook.

They know it's phoey but they feel comfy together. Nothing wrong with that in my book. Just have to fight them from shoving their beliefs down mt throat! LOL Originally Posted by WTF

I can not speak for others WTF, but if I came on here and posted that 2+2 =5. I would rather a person respond back with ...

A. No Becky please go buy a calculator 2+2=4 not 5.
Perhaps you are not thinking straight at the moment, and need another nap

instead of

B. Becky you are a truly ignorant person how could you possibly think that 2+2 could equals 5. It is 4 you moron.

You see there is a way to tell a person they are wrong without causing any pain.

Now if you need any more examples I will be happy to come up with some Originally Posted by Becky

I agree.

What about tolerance vs intolerance. We, in this society, are allowed to believe in whatever we want. Whether we believe in monotheism or polytheism or nothing at all, we have an obligation to allow the individual to believe how they choose as long as it doesn't interfere with another persons' viewpoints. Some of us don't have a faith in any organized religion. Some of us do not believe at all. And some have a faith that supercedes anothers veiws.

Who are we to tell someone that what they believe is wrong? Who are you or anyone else to tell those that have a faith beyond your beliefs that they are wrong? I've known people who believe so strongly you cannot change their mind. There are those that only believe, "just in case," but they still have the right to believe in any way they choose.

I see a faith in a belief beyond religion that, to me, is even more frightening than religious ideology. ? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

hi there,
you make good points, but may i suggest that there is - still - a difference between a "belief" and a "science". You are free to believe whatever you want. You can also believe in alians, Karma, the afterlife and whatnot. But - every discussion is automatically invalid when it comes to dogma and beliefs. which means you cannot discuss beliefs. Its per se impossible. That is the foundation of a dogma.

Now we have the happening that some people think their beliefs are superiour to others, or that anything is a belief. That is when we encounter problems (religious war vs. factsity).

with something that is not a belief there is always a doubt within. with a belief there is never a doubt. that is the small - but utmost important - thing. so if you believe that 2 and 2 is 5 than it is up to you, but don`t pretend you have facts that underlie that belief, because these so called facts are not point of question and doubt that is open for discussing, but also only beliefs.
a fact is something that can be questioned. Beliefs cannot. because the facts underlying them are science fiction. not something that can be stated within a frame of reference for their validity. plus a science can never be "right". you can never "proof" a science. a belief is something that goes unquestioned and resembles love. some people believe when someone treats them like crap that they do so out of love. you can argue with them that your view of love is different, but you cannot tell them their belief is wrong. even when they hurt themselves. with science you can state facts. and bring points of validity. and when you have so many points that speak for the favour of aggression and disrespect instead of love than you can state that it might be possible that aggression is a more valid point within the stated frame of reference (being treated like crap) instead of love.

so having opinions is not the same as stating scientific facts. you are free to believe anything (hell i believe i will have a threesome with brad pitt and george clooney one day :-) what kind of arguments do you want to state against that?? he he....)

Plus: fascism is a belief system too? If i point out that some people are supposed to be minorities and screwing racists is ok, then that s a belief too. You can encounter that with genetics science by pointing out that the view of "races" is invalid since there is not so much genetic variability amongst humans to qualify one person as a diffferent race :-)... so science can actually help to broaden minds :-)....rather than beliefs.

My post was not at all a criticism of you. It was simply to make the point that it seemed pretty clear to a number of people what this thread was about. Just another data point to support my opinion. Originally Posted by discreetgent

well you must feel similar to me :-) then. because you state that something is pretty clear , which it is , but still for example others pretend it isn`t that clear....
what do you want to tell these others then? No matter how many valid points you present, they just ignore it and state their opinion again and again and again even if the facts are overwhelming. that is the true core of a belief then. you can`t argue beliefs. if someone truly believes that this thread is about Sarah Palin and Russian Pravda rather than Lauren and me, then its their belief ...;-). you can tell religious people that Jesus was married and they still won``t cahnge their belief, right? I just believe that yellow is green. Its my right to do so no matter how many points you bring that invalidate my belief. Plus i will NEVER admit you have been right,.. ever!!

Who's right and who's wrong? Are we supposed to indoctronate someone to a particular belief or educate them to make an informed decision? At what point is it education and at what point does it become indoctrination? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

your talking about religious beliefs vs. religious beliefs. science is something different. you cannot challenge beliefs. that is why i believe in freedom of all religions. but you can`t throw science into a pot with that and state its just yet another belief. a belief system is dogmatic and per se unquestionable. A science isn`t its always questionable. and only valid within certain frames of reference. For example the law of gravity is only valid within certain references too (earth vs. non-earth). there is not universal law of gravity - but there is a universal belief system.

and when Einstein was quoting that science gets into transpersonal realms by telling that at some point it does become religious, he was talking about the transcendence into challenging conscious ness expanding theories. Schroedingers Cat (the three states of happenings in one point of time)... vs. Pavlov`s dog (cause and effect). He meant that a state of consciousness. But you can`t quote Einstein when you have no idea why he was saying what he said and within which frame of reference.

No matter how many valid points you present, they just ignore it and state their opinion again and again and again even if the facts are overwhelming. That is the true core of a belief then.
You can't argue beliefs. If someone truly believes that this thread is about Sarah Palin and Russian Pravda rather than Lauren and me, then its their belief ...;-). you can tell religious people that Jesus was married and they still won't change their belief... Originally Posted by ninasastri

You are right at some point people ignore and no longer are interested in hearing facts. That's when you just say "let the ignorant remain ignorant" so long as it doesn't hurt someone or something. Otherwise you take action.

Not that it matters as I am sure most are versed on the definition, but for those that aren't take note below:



Definition of Belief:

· any cognitive content held as true
· impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Subjective logic is a type of probabilistic logic that explicitly takes uncertainty and belief ownership into account. In general, subjective logic is suitable for modeling and analysing situations involving uncertainty and incomplete knowledge.[1][2] For example, it can be used for modeling trust networks and for analysing Bayesian networks.
Arguments in subjective logic are subjective opinions about propositions. A binomial opinion applies to a single proposition, and can be represented as a Beta distribution. A multinomial opinion applies to a collection of propositions, and can be represented as a Dirichlet distribution. Through the correspondence between opinions and Beta/Dirichlet distributions, subjective logic provides an algebra for these functions. Opinions are also related to the belief functions of Dempster-Shafer belief theory.
A fundamental aspect of the human condition is that nobody can ever determine with absolute certainty whether a proposition about the world is true or false. In addition, whenever the truth of a proposition is expressed, it is always done by an individual, and it can never be considered to represent a general and objective belief. These philosophical ideas are directly reflected in the mathematical formalism of subjective logic.

You are right at some point people ignore and no longer are interested in hearing facts. That's when you just say "let the ignorant remain ignorant" so long as it doesn't hurt someone or something. Otherwise you take action.

Not that it matters as I am sure most are versed on the definition, but for those that aren't take note below:



Definition of Belief:

· any cognitive content held as true
· impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

Subjective logic is a type of probabilistic logic that explicitly takes uncertainty and belief ownership into account. In general, subjective logic is suitable for modeling and analysing situations involving uncertainty and incomplete knowledge.[1][2] For example, it can be used for modeling trust networks and for analysing Bayesian networks.
Arguments in subjective logic are subjective opinions about propositions. A binomial opinion applies to a single proposition, and can be represented as a Beta distribution. A multinomial opinion applies to a collection of propositions, and can be represented as a Dirichlet distribution. Through the correspondence between opinions and Beta/Dirichlet distributions, subjective logic provides an algebra for these functions. Opinions are also related to the belief functions of Dempster-Shafer belief theory.
A fundamental aspect of the human condition is that nobody can ever determine with absolute certainty whether a proposition about the world is true or false. In addition, whenever the truth of a proposition is expressed, it is always done by an individual, and it can never be considered to represent a general and objective belief. These philosophical ideas are directly reflected in the mathematical formalism of subjective logic. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Bebe, i loooooove you!!!!!!! You are AWESOME!!

Here is what Ms. Palin really is:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-31-2011/from-russia-with-gov

If Beck and Ed say it's "Five" I'm on their side! Originally Posted by SR Only

lol... so she`s a spy and helping the cause? I knew it! No one can really be that non-intelligent :-) I think Anna Chapman was russians better version of Mata Hari though...

lol... so she`s a spy and helping the cause? I knew it! No one can really be that non-intelligent :-) I think Anna Chapman was russians better version of Mata Hari though... Originally Posted by ninasastri

You know I laughed my ass off when I watched her interview and the stupid, ill informed things she said about the russians, cold war, and sputnik. In case you missed it here is the link to the interview:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sputnik-a...talking-about/

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin offered her thoughts on President Obama’s State of the Union address to Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Wednesday night, and while she cleverly zeroed in on the unfortunate abbreviation of the speech’s “Win The Future” theme, Palin’s analysis quickly went rogue with reality. Despite her proximity to its launch site, Palin displayed ignorance of Sputnik 1’s significance (both in the speech, and in Soviet history), and offered a bizarre non-prescription for America involving something called “Spudnuts.”

Bebe, i loooooove you!!!!!!! You are AWESOME!! Originally Posted by ninasastri