A recent article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3472655/Father-s-fury-school-calls-social-services-son-8-told-teachers-wanted-fight-terrorists-watching-news-report-Syrian-refugee-crisis.html#ixzz41ptno3sW
So, the UK now has laws whereby institutions such as schools now have a legal duty to report anything which might possibly be contrued as 'radicalisation' in order to avoid anyone becoming a terrorist.
On the surface, a good thing.
But UK society is so scared of not doing their duty, that - as is so often the case now - they go overboard...
A school puts on a charitable event to help Syrian refugees, and in the process explains the role of terrorism in creating this situation.
The result? One pupil thinks that terrorism needs to be dealt with (hence the government policy), but by expressing this view - that he wants to fight terrorism - he is reported for potential radicalisation!
It wasn't so long ago when the newspapers were reporting on the 'war on terror' and of course the government's emphasis on fighting terrorism over the last decade. Instead of thinking that here's a person who could be a good agent to fight terrorism, they accuse him of potentially becoming a terrorist...
Now, if expressing the view that you want to fight terrorism is a step towards radicalisation, then the whole UK and US governments are also in that very same boat.
I think we need someone in politics who is competent in logical reasoning.
(Not me.)
Sunday, 6 March 2016
Saturday, 5 March 2016
Learning to haggle
Here are a few observations I've made recently regarding successful haggling or negotiating:
1. You must be happy to accept all outcomes.
If you try to avoid one particular outcome, this will be picked up by the other party and you will be on the back foot. But if you are truly happy to accept either outcome, then you have already won: either way, you will walk away happy. Essentially, the ball's in their court, but you have all the cards!
2. Offer something the other party needs.
If you walk into a negotiation with the wrong offer, you will be turned down immediately. In the marketplace, going to a bicycle dealer offering to part-exchange a car engine for a bike, it probably won't work... unless the person you speak to is in desperate need of a car engine. But offering them a decent frame or other bicycle parts might open the door. If a company is short-staffed, your services might prove valuable.
3. Start with an outageous offer.
If you walk into the negotiation with a 'sensible' offer, you will be talked away from it. This offer needs to be the 'meet in the middle' offer: the outcome of the negotiation, not the start. If you want to buy a car for £2000, and say that at the start, you could easily end up paying £2500. So start with £1000, 'meeting in the middle' with £2000 (or even less, if you get lucky). If you offer something the other pary needs, they will be happy to negotiate. A car dealer might have a target to reach, so you will be helping them. If it is your services on the table, and you know they are valuable, you can set the price! But if your services aren't needed, the negotiation will get shut down before it even begins.
4. The longer the other party ponders is important.
If the other party takes plenty of time to consider your offer, you are in a strong position: you have something of value. If they are quick to settle, effectively saying, "Take it or leave it," then you must also be quick to respond. You can either stick with your initial offer and walk away, or continue the negotiation. But if you take the time to consider their offer, then their position becomes stronger: they know that you want what they have.
The key is to not be in want of anything: be content.
But this is difficult in a society that tells you that you 'should have' or 'deserve' everything on offer!!
Essentially, the non-materialist has the upper hand.
1. You must be happy to accept all outcomes.
If you try to avoid one particular outcome, this will be picked up by the other party and you will be on the back foot. But if you are truly happy to accept either outcome, then you have already won: either way, you will walk away happy. Essentially, the ball's in their court, but you have all the cards!
2. Offer something the other party needs.
If you walk into a negotiation with the wrong offer, you will be turned down immediately. In the marketplace, going to a bicycle dealer offering to part-exchange a car engine for a bike, it probably won't work... unless the person you speak to is in desperate need of a car engine. But offering them a decent frame or other bicycle parts might open the door. If a company is short-staffed, your services might prove valuable.
3. Start with an outageous offer.
If you walk into the negotiation with a 'sensible' offer, you will be talked away from it. This offer needs to be the 'meet in the middle' offer: the outcome of the negotiation, not the start. If you want to buy a car for £2000, and say that at the start, you could easily end up paying £2500. So start with £1000, 'meeting in the middle' with £2000 (or even less, if you get lucky). If you offer something the other pary needs, they will be happy to negotiate. A car dealer might have a target to reach, so you will be helping them. If it is your services on the table, and you know they are valuable, you can set the price! But if your services aren't needed, the negotiation will get shut down before it even begins.
4. The longer the other party ponders is important.
If the other party takes plenty of time to consider your offer, you are in a strong position: you have something of value. If they are quick to settle, effectively saying, "Take it or leave it," then you must also be quick to respond. You can either stick with your initial offer and walk away, or continue the negotiation. But if you take the time to consider their offer, then their position becomes stronger: they know that you want what they have.
The key is to not be in want of anything: be content.
But this is difficult in a society that tells you that you 'should have' or 'deserve' everything on offer!!
Essentially, the non-materialist has the upper hand.
Thursday, 3 March 2016
The paradox of an atheistic viewpoint
A hot topoic in many debates regarding ethics: Hitler, Stalin and other dictators.
These people are often considered the most evil of people to have ever lived, because of the huge numbers of deaths they caused.
A number of people even go so far as to conclude that 'God cannot be good, because He is the one who created such people.' And this is usually followed by a statement that God not being good is a contradiction, and therefore God surely cannot exist at all.
So, it is a problem for there to be evil people on the earth.
And yet, in the Bible there are numerous accounts of evil people being killed: Noah and the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, to name just two. The very same people mentioned above also often say that 'God cannot be good, because He caused so many deaths.' This is often followed by a statement that God is essentially the same as Hitler.
So, it is a problem for evil people to be removed from the earth.
The bigger problem - the problem that continues to go unsolved - is that this paradox slips by unnoticed. Two views which seem to be good - no one should create something that is evil, and mass muder is inherently wrong - rule out the possibility of a supreme Goodness (God).
So, if God does not exist, and there is no absolute good standard, then who are we to rule that ethnic cleansing is evil?
But the problem can be solved:
- God created people to have free will (which includes the freedom to rebel).
- Some people rebel.
- God doesn't like the evil behaviour.
- In the Bible, God destroyed the evil behaviour by also destroying the human it came from.
- Jesus came to bring God's mercy (not destroying the human), giving more chances for people to change their behaviour.
The problem we have now is that people turn God's mercy against Him, by saying that a loving God would surely not allow such evil in the world.
Of course, the other problem is that people abuse the chances that God gives: they live a life however they please, because they think God allows all behaviour (or say that He doesn't exist because there is not immediate punishment), then they get angry at the notion that God might deem them 'not worthy.'
These people are often considered the most evil of people to have ever lived, because of the huge numbers of deaths they caused.
A number of people even go so far as to conclude that 'God cannot be good, because He is the one who created such people.' And this is usually followed by a statement that God not being good is a contradiction, and therefore God surely cannot exist at all.
So, it is a problem for there to be evil people on the earth.
And yet, in the Bible there are numerous accounts of evil people being killed: Noah and the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, to name just two. The very same people mentioned above also often say that 'God cannot be good, because He caused so many deaths.' This is often followed by a statement that God is essentially the same as Hitler.
So, it is a problem for evil people to be removed from the earth.
The bigger problem - the problem that continues to go unsolved - is that this paradox slips by unnoticed. Two views which seem to be good - no one should create something that is evil, and mass muder is inherently wrong - rule out the possibility of a supreme Goodness (God).
So, if God does not exist, and there is no absolute good standard, then who are we to rule that ethnic cleansing is evil?
But the problem can be solved:
- God created people to have free will (which includes the freedom to rebel).
- Some people rebel.
- God doesn't like the evil behaviour.
- In the Bible, God destroyed the evil behaviour by also destroying the human it came from.
- Jesus came to bring God's mercy (not destroying the human), giving more chances for people to change their behaviour.
The problem we have now is that people turn God's mercy against Him, by saying that a loving God would surely not allow such evil in the world.
Of course, the other problem is that people abuse the chances that God gives: they live a life however they please, because they think God allows all behaviour (or say that He doesn't exist because there is not immediate punishment), then they get angry at the notion that God might deem them 'not worthy.'
Wednesday, 2 March 2016
UK becoming totalitarian?
From reading another recent article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12176380/Christian-student-expelled-for-opposing-gay-marriage.html?utm_source=Christian+Concern&utm_campaign=064303125a-BN-2016-02-29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e164371ca-064303125a-127507157
Regardless of the main content of the article, there's a paragraph regarding this individual "... that he was entitled to his opinion ... but that there was a danger he "may have caused offence to some individuals" by voicing it."
Am I getting this right? Is there seriously the suggestion that we're only allowed our own opinions as long as we don't voice it?
Surely this is just another way of the government - or just those in authority over us - keeping us silent. It's essentially a gag order: be quiet or lose your job.
Aren't we thrilled to live in such a free country?!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12176380/Christian-student-expelled-for-opposing-gay-marriage.html?utm_source=Christian+Concern&utm_campaign=064303125a-BN-2016-02-29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e164371ca-064303125a-127507157
Regardless of the main content of the article, there's a paragraph regarding this individual "... that he was entitled to his opinion ... but that there was a danger he "may have caused offence to some individuals" by voicing it."
Am I getting this right? Is there seriously the suggestion that we're only allowed our own opinions as long as we don't voice it?
Surely this is just another way of the government - or just those in authority over us - keeping us silent. It's essentially a gag order: be quiet or lose your job.
Aren't we thrilled to live in such a free country?!
Sunday, 7 February 2016
Freedom of speech?!
My attention was recently drawn to an article regarding a Primary School headteacher who had a chunk of abuse thrown at her for stating her belief that there is more evidence for the Bible's creation story than for modern science's evolution theory.
The article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3428056/Church-England-primary-school-headteacher-sparks-online-ridicule-claiming-evolution-theory-evidence-Bible-true.html#ixzz3zKPbxAba
A few things to note:
- It's a Church of England school.
- Teachers have views about the world too.
- We're meant to live in a society of free speech.
Things people said include:
1. She is 'stupid and ignorant.'
2. She should quit her job.
3. Her comments are tantamount to 'child abuse.'
I want to go through these.
1. Many people hold to 'scientific fact' when they don't actually know the facts themselves. They essentially think, "Someone more intelligent than me has done some research and says it's true, so it must be true." Any non-science-literate person who accepts scientific theory as fact is themselves 'ignorant' and (therefore) essentially 'stupid.' This is because it is hypocritical to claim that 'religious people' are 'brainwashing' people into their belief system ('preying on the weak-minded,' as it were) because they believe such a belief system is delusional, when in actual fact they are believing a number of things to be true that they do not actually hold the evidence for or can prove to be true. What we essentially have in the UK education system is 'scientific brainwashing' whereby children are told, "This is what the scientists say, so it must be true."
We also need to be careful that we are not ignorant of the assumptions made when people talk. From a mathematical point of view, we accept that 1+1=2. If I were to suggest that 1+1=10, people would call me a fool. However, 1+1 does indeed equal 10. What you may not have realised up until now is that my first statement was using the decimal number system, and the second using binary. What's the boiling point of water? 100 degrees, 373.15 degrees or 212 degrees? All are correct. The first answer is Celsius, the second Kelvin, the third Fahrenheit.
It wasn't so long ago that 'evolution' meant evolving from apes. Now the scientific community suggest it is more likely from a 'common ancestor.' Given that scientific research, theory and experiementation requires the tweaking of pre-existing theories as new evidence is found, how we ever say that it is 'fact'?
When people talk, especially when science is involved, we need to know the assumptions they are making. Unfortunately, many assumptions are not stated. The hearer 'fills in the blanks' and may well come away thinking that something was said that really wasn't.
A nice, recent example was with an article stating, "NASA confirms evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars." When this (and many such articles) emerged, I was intrigued. Careful reading actually showed that there are some streaks on some of the slopes which contain some minerals that have been found in water on Earth. This is not evidence. This is one hypothesis after another. It is an assumption that water would be the same on every planet (unless they actualy refer to the water of Earth when they talk of water on Mars). It is an assumption that the identification of certain minerals demands a conclusion of water. It is an assumption that the streaks on the slopes were formed by liquid water. The evidence might 'point in that direction,' and it may well be proved sometime in the future (or proved false), but at the moment it certainly isn't a scientific 'fact.' And yet I heard people saying, "Isn't it amazing that they've actually found water on Mars?!"
So who is 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science?
Not only this, but most of the common people who like to hold tightly to the infallibility of scientific theory ridicule people who believe religious texts such as the Bible. The irony is that such people have not often read the Bible, and those who have often have only read it once, not realising that a single reading cannot possibly give the fullness of understanding that they claim to have. They do not fully realise the difference between poetic, historical, and prophetic writing. They do not fully understand the cultural significance of the laws that were given (instead, claiming it is just a 'primitive' society), nor that parables appear in many places, not just when Jesus speaks.
Many people call religious people 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science, but these people could be considered 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to religious texts.
Just have a look around to see what 'science' has done for the moral standards of society.
2. Forcing someone to quit their job because of their views... isn't that called 'intolerance'?! What a civilised society we are!
3. It could be considered 'tantamount to child abuse' to allow young people to experiment with ouija boards and tarot cards. Just because some people choose not to believe in the existence of demonic influence, is that really sufficient evidence to prove it is not real?
What about parents shouting angrily at each other in the presence of their children? What example are they setting for their children?
What about people who encourage their children to accept scientific 'facts' without detailed scrutiny of them?
To suggest that expressing views to children is 'tantamount to child abuse' is a very risky position to hold.
The article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3428056/Church-England-primary-school-headteacher-sparks-online-ridicule-claiming-evolution-theory-evidence-Bible-true.html#ixzz3zKPbxAba
A few things to note:
- It's a Church of England school.
- Teachers have views about the world too.
- We're meant to live in a society of free speech.
Things people said include:
1. She is 'stupid and ignorant.'
2. She should quit her job.
3. Her comments are tantamount to 'child abuse.'
I want to go through these.
1. Many people hold to 'scientific fact' when they don't actually know the facts themselves. They essentially think, "Someone more intelligent than me has done some research and says it's true, so it must be true." Any non-science-literate person who accepts scientific theory as fact is themselves 'ignorant' and (therefore) essentially 'stupid.' This is because it is hypocritical to claim that 'religious people' are 'brainwashing' people into their belief system ('preying on the weak-minded,' as it were) because they believe such a belief system is delusional, when in actual fact they are believing a number of things to be true that they do not actually hold the evidence for or can prove to be true. What we essentially have in the UK education system is 'scientific brainwashing' whereby children are told, "This is what the scientists say, so it must be true."
We also need to be careful that we are not ignorant of the assumptions made when people talk. From a mathematical point of view, we accept that 1+1=2. If I were to suggest that 1+1=10, people would call me a fool. However, 1+1 does indeed equal 10. What you may not have realised up until now is that my first statement was using the decimal number system, and the second using binary. What's the boiling point of water? 100 degrees, 373.15 degrees or 212 degrees? All are correct. The first answer is Celsius, the second Kelvin, the third Fahrenheit.
It wasn't so long ago that 'evolution' meant evolving from apes. Now the scientific community suggest it is more likely from a 'common ancestor.' Given that scientific research, theory and experiementation requires the tweaking of pre-existing theories as new evidence is found, how we ever say that it is 'fact'?
When people talk, especially when science is involved, we need to know the assumptions they are making. Unfortunately, many assumptions are not stated. The hearer 'fills in the blanks' and may well come away thinking that something was said that really wasn't.
A nice, recent example was with an article stating, "NASA confirms evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars." When this (and many such articles) emerged, I was intrigued. Careful reading actually showed that there are some streaks on some of the slopes which contain some minerals that have been found in water on Earth. This is not evidence. This is one hypothesis after another. It is an assumption that water would be the same on every planet (unless they actualy refer to the water of Earth when they talk of water on Mars). It is an assumption that the identification of certain minerals demands a conclusion of water. It is an assumption that the streaks on the slopes were formed by liquid water. The evidence might 'point in that direction,' and it may well be proved sometime in the future (or proved false), but at the moment it certainly isn't a scientific 'fact.' And yet I heard people saying, "Isn't it amazing that they've actually found water on Mars?!"
So who is 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science?
Not only this, but most of the common people who like to hold tightly to the infallibility of scientific theory ridicule people who believe religious texts such as the Bible. The irony is that such people have not often read the Bible, and those who have often have only read it once, not realising that a single reading cannot possibly give the fullness of understanding that they claim to have. They do not fully realise the difference between poetic, historical, and prophetic writing. They do not fully understand the cultural significance of the laws that were given (instead, claiming it is just a 'primitive' society), nor that parables appear in many places, not just when Jesus speaks.
Many people call religious people 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science, but these people could be considered 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to religious texts.
Just have a look around to see what 'science' has done for the moral standards of society.
2. Forcing someone to quit their job because of their views... isn't that called 'intolerance'?! What a civilised society we are!
3. It could be considered 'tantamount to child abuse' to allow young people to experiment with ouija boards and tarot cards. Just because some people choose not to believe in the existence of demonic influence, is that really sufficient evidence to prove it is not real?
What about parents shouting angrily at each other in the presence of their children? What example are they setting for their children?
What about people who encourage their children to accept scientific 'facts' without detailed scrutiny of them?
To suggest that expressing views to children is 'tantamount to child abuse' is a very risky position to hold.
Wednesday, 20 January 2016
Brainwashing by alienation?
I continue to hear many things regarding the increased acceptance of homosexuality, especially the hatred thrown at those who hold fast to traditional marriage.
What I find interesting is that most homosexuality supporters (abbreviated to HS for this post) label the traditional supporters (TS, for this post) as 'intolerant' and 'bigots.' But, if we are to understand 'intolerance' as a feeling or act of hatred towards those who disagree to our own view, then surely - by the very act of calling a TS a 'bigot' - the HS group are displaying strong signs of intolerance and bigotry?
How is it 'tolerant' to say, "You don't agree with me, so you're a bigot"? Or, in its most ironic form, "I can't tolerate your intolerance!" Surely 'tolerance' would be to say, "We accept people, regardless of their view"?
It seems to me that this whole issue is a very clever piece of social peer pressure - brainwashing, if you will. People don't like being called names, especially to be labelled as something like a 'bigot.' For a TS, the options are to either change their thinking to become a HS, or to be irrationally and intolerantly labelled and insulted.
The HS agenda is moved forward, not with logical reasoning or scientific evidence, but with schoolyard bully tactics. The TS group are made to feel alienated by their own people unless they change their view. The feeling of alienation is unpleasant, and it doesn't require much conversation to find that many people (in UK, at least) do not have enough foundation to their beliefs, that many will move from a TS to a HS (still without solid conviction).
To top it off, 'tolerance' laws are then added to society, jeopardising the jobs of the TS if they should voice their opinion in the wrong environment. How is this equality? How is this tolerant?
It seems - to me at least - the hallmark of a society that does not really know what it wants to be. An act of people-pleasing that only results in confusion, anarchy and alienation.
What I also find ironic is the offence caused by turning the name-calling around: the next time a HS calls a TS a bigot, tell them that such a statement is a sign of intolerant bigotry and see what happens!
What I find interesting is that most homosexuality supporters (abbreviated to HS for this post) label the traditional supporters (TS, for this post) as 'intolerant' and 'bigots.' But, if we are to understand 'intolerance' as a feeling or act of hatred towards those who disagree to our own view, then surely - by the very act of calling a TS a 'bigot' - the HS group are displaying strong signs of intolerance and bigotry?
How is it 'tolerant' to say, "You don't agree with me, so you're a bigot"? Or, in its most ironic form, "I can't tolerate your intolerance!" Surely 'tolerance' would be to say, "We accept people, regardless of their view"?
It seems to me that this whole issue is a very clever piece of social peer pressure - brainwashing, if you will. People don't like being called names, especially to be labelled as something like a 'bigot.' For a TS, the options are to either change their thinking to become a HS, or to be irrationally and intolerantly labelled and insulted.
The HS agenda is moved forward, not with logical reasoning or scientific evidence, but with schoolyard bully tactics. The TS group are made to feel alienated by their own people unless they change their view. The feeling of alienation is unpleasant, and it doesn't require much conversation to find that many people (in UK, at least) do not have enough foundation to their beliefs, that many will move from a TS to a HS (still without solid conviction).
To top it off, 'tolerance' laws are then added to society, jeopardising the jobs of the TS if they should voice their opinion in the wrong environment. How is this equality? How is this tolerant?
It seems - to me at least - the hallmark of a society that does not really know what it wants to be. An act of people-pleasing that only results in confusion, anarchy and alienation.
What I also find ironic is the offence caused by turning the name-calling around: the next time a HS calls a TS a bigot, tell them that such a statement is a sign of intolerant bigotry and see what happens!
Saturday, 2 January 2016
Increase in modern mental health problems
Is it clear that recent years have shown an increase in mental health issues such as depression. There is also a massive increase in people being diagnosed with things such as ADD, ADHD, ODD, many other acronyms, as well as Asperger's syndrome and the fairly recent conclusion that autism is a 'spectrum' that we are all on at some point.
Perhaps we have just managed to come up with more names to label the behaviour of various people (especially as it is now considered offensive and politically incorrect to call someone 'retarded', a 'delinquent' or an 'idiot'), or perhaps there is a reason behind it - an inconvenient reason, given the state of modern British society.
Scientists are slowly convincing the Western world that they have (or, are developing) the answers and understanding to everything pertaining to life on earth. Religions are more commonly being described as primitive belief systems, for people with limited understanding (some staunch atheists thrive off such name-calling).
However, could it be that since 'tampering with the supernatural', such as playing with ouija boards and tarot cards, has now been described as innocent and harmless play (by those very same academically advanced 'professionals'), their effects are no longer being treated in the correct manner?
'Primitive' peoples would look to witch doctors or spiritualists if there was something happening in their life that they couldn't understand. In earlier Christian societies, people would turn to the priests for deliverance from the negativity they encounter.
But now, in an age where spirituality is increasingly brushed off as nonsense, we are seeing an increase in mental and behavioural disorders...
To top it off, churches and other religious gatherings can be subject to accusations of preying on the weak and needy when people with such disorders search for spiritual help with their problems. In other words, the very people needing spiritual help/deliverance are prevented from such treatment due to the accusations and assumptions of people who believe such things to be nonsense.
Some people would even go so far as to calling such help a form of 'brainwashing', despite such people having essentially 'brainwashed' society into believing that spirituality is just nonsense.
The irony is that 'serious academics' wouldn't 'tarnish' their career by properly researching the possibility of such connections, and anyone who would dare to put forward research which would suggest such a connection would be labelled as unprofessional or a supporter of 'pseudoscience'.
Perhaps we have just managed to come up with more names to label the behaviour of various people (especially as it is now considered offensive and politically incorrect to call someone 'retarded', a 'delinquent' or an 'idiot'), or perhaps there is a reason behind it - an inconvenient reason, given the state of modern British society.
Scientists are slowly convincing the Western world that they have (or, are developing) the answers and understanding to everything pertaining to life on earth. Religions are more commonly being described as primitive belief systems, for people with limited understanding (some staunch atheists thrive off such name-calling).
However, could it be that since 'tampering with the supernatural', such as playing with ouija boards and tarot cards, has now been described as innocent and harmless play (by those very same academically advanced 'professionals'), their effects are no longer being treated in the correct manner?
'Primitive' peoples would look to witch doctors or spiritualists if there was something happening in their life that they couldn't understand. In earlier Christian societies, people would turn to the priests for deliverance from the negativity they encounter.
But now, in an age where spirituality is increasingly brushed off as nonsense, we are seeing an increase in mental and behavioural disorders...
To top it off, churches and other religious gatherings can be subject to accusations of preying on the weak and needy when people with such disorders search for spiritual help with their problems. In other words, the very people needing spiritual help/deliverance are prevented from such treatment due to the accusations and assumptions of people who believe such things to be nonsense.
Some people would even go so far as to calling such help a form of 'brainwashing', despite such people having essentially 'brainwashed' society into believing that spirituality is just nonsense.
The irony is that 'serious academics' wouldn't 'tarnish' their career by properly researching the possibility of such connections, and anyone who would dare to put forward research which would suggest such a connection would be labelled as unprofessional or a supporter of 'pseudoscience'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)