your all over the place mark, saying one thing then later a denial, secularism allows people to live as individuals in society with no real responsibility the community as a whole, look how many neighbours from hell that abound. we have the ethics that hold our timeless appeal written 6k years ago and copied by many. you said earlier things will not improve unless teaching is done in a secular manner internationally. please try not to judge others by your beliefs. how can science provide principals if as you say they don't provide answers?? to grahame, we live with a set of moral ethics so live peaceably within any community we habit. len
Len, our positions are intractable. I'm happy to agree to disagree. I respect your right to believe and espouse whatever you feel. I only wish you would offer the world's scientific community the same level of respect. By all means, if you have a beef against a certain scientist, or a certain scientific theory, let's debate that. However, if you persist in denigrating the entire scientific community in practically every post you offer, and in the interests of the PRI Forum community as a whole, I shall be forced to ask the moderators to 'moderate' your behaviour. PS: I have never gone down this path of proposing censorship before. It is not a position I take likely. However, I feel that your intense hatred of the scientific community is clouding your judgement concerning the nature of the material you post. The PRI Forum has a world-wide audience, and while I see great merit in debating within the 'big picture', I am concerned that your constant denigration of the scientific community leaking into practically every other thread/category you contribute to, does very little to further the permaculture cause. By you own admission you have been 'banned' from other forums, please do not go the same way here.
I have to agree with Markos here, I am struggling with Len's anti-science rants which I find incredibly offensive and without merit. However, Len, you are entitled to your religious beliefs and anti-science opinion and no one here would argue otherwise. It is the attacks on those of us who do not share your beliefs that is unacceptable and offensive.
Now back to the topic at hand: This is priceless. https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10151338346311568
so others can say what they like about me and my beliefs and that is not then attack??? boy how bigotted you are. len
Can you point to where you are attacked, slandered and offensively labelled on a regular basis as is your wont to the rest of us who do not share your views?
Classic! Thanks, MITH, for lightening the mood. I don't 'do' FB, but I'll be sending that link on, for sure!
not interested MITH we have a life, you judge i do it so that means you have seen it done to me, monkey see monkey do stuff, science at its best hey. len
Whoop De Doo! Part 2, or... "Gun Control & Political Suicide" https://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-23-2013/gun-control---political-suicide Sadly, this hallmarks the major difference in American politics vs ________________________.
If you stopped blaming everything on science and secularism in every single post, you might find those "attacks" have gone. Whenever you state something that you know is a hot button topic, you are moving yourself in to the "line of fire". Monkey see, monkey do indeed.
I found that video to be relieving in a strange sort of way. I always knew(along with countless others) that our politicians were more worried about being re-elected than in doing the right thing, it's nice to see it voiced by an 'expert'. At least some politicians put the people first, too bad none are in this country. Eventually it will happen, but not after more pain, suffering and death to all of the species living on this planet.
I wish more Americans realized what it really means for our politics & the world at large by transitive process of us all in 1 environment.
Thanks, Paka. However, the link is 'unavailable' in our 'region' (Australia). Perhaps you could post a link to it on YT, as you did previously? I need another laugh. Correction: As MITH did previously.
Ta. It's not that I was being overly lazy or anything, it's just that I was a little pushed for time today. 'Not as funny as the first', was my first thought. Although, at about the 5-min mark, it did elicit a couple of giggles out of me. Tragically, it is a rather sad reflection of representative democracy where ever it occurs the world over. Which is all the more reason to visit us (warning, shameless plug coming up), here .
"If democracy was actually practiced in the US then the govt would actually represent the people and address their needs. " eco4560 I think there is some difficulty here in that 'the people' have to know what their needs are before the gov't can satisfy them. That is probably an education/information problem, not a government problem. True we often get needs met that we don't have--and medical concerns are the primo topic in that arena. As for guns, the average citizen does not know how to shoot a gun, and does not need one. I say this from the perspective of one who spent 4 years as a sharp shooter in ROTC. Allowing untrained shooters to own guns only results in bullets winding up in cows, children, dogs, etc. indiscriminately. We do have the second amendment, but it is a bit out of date. As for Democracy in the US, we still have the right to vote any elected official out of office. And, we can also impeach any official if the public thinks that official is getting out of line. But then if the public is undereducated and indictrinated, or brain washed democracy cannot work.
Needs: food, clothing, shelter, water, other people. The government provides none of that, except to a few unlucky(or lucky depending on your point of view) people/families. Some NGOs provide those things to the same category of people. Private industry provides our needs outside of "other people", at a cost. If you're throwing in needs such as doctors(which aren't technically needed if you have someone that knows their herbs(etc) and nutrition for prevention, plus basic diagnosis), police/security(needed less the more spread out people are area-wise), military(needed less when resources are high globally), roads/power grids/other infrastructure(needed mostly for a consumerist society), then yes, people should know what their needs are, even if those needs are purely infrastructural in nature. Basically, we have overcomplicated(yes, beyond complicated) everything because we are intelligent with very little wisdom. Because we overcomplicated things and passed on the responsibility of basic human needs to other people, now we require education to take care of the mess we've made. I'm sure it can't be quite as simple as I've phrased it. There has to be more to it than we just got lazy.
