jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (31 posts)

Come on Misha! Time to 'fess up !

  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    I have much enjoyed the various discussions arguments and knowledge sharing on this forum. But, at least for me, it's usefulness and entertainment value is coming to an end, as we seem to be going over the same ground.

    We have heard from the christians. Rather loudly in some cases smile

    But more respectfully and persuasively in other cases. big_smile

    The occasional Wytch has dropped by with a few words of wisdom.

    The believers in the quest for oneness with the energy of higher truth have spoken.

    The creationists have had their say.

    The anti-evolutionists have had an even louder say. big_smile

    The "I have my own theory of evolution and it doesn't fit with yours," ists  had a go at persuading everyone their version is correct.

    A few gentle reminders from the Budhhists were dropped.

    A few unusual approaches to explaining the idea of universal connectedness were made.

    The occasional "reverend" dropped by to leave us with a few inappropriate quotes from the good bok and then disappeared from whence they had come - once they realized we weren't all going to cave in and start believing in their particular brand of religion.

    The atheists and anti-theists asked some tough questions that didn't and couldn't be answered.

    I myself have made it clear I think we are all wrong. (Including myself probably lol)

    But - through it all, one person sat on the sidelines. Asking questions. Refusing to disagree with anything or anyone.


    So. What's the deal? What do you think or believe ?

    Time to 'fess up big_smile

  2. RFox profile image83
    RFoxposted 8 years ago

    Lol. Awesome post Mark. Awaiting Misha's reply.........wink

  3. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Hey, it'll take a while - I seem to be pretty busy today - and this one requires some thinking big_smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      In your own time........ big_smile

  4. Peter M. Lopez profile image93
    Peter M. Lopezposted 8 years ago

    I can't wait...

  5. 0
    sandra rinckposted 8 years ago

    Because it's Misha.  da best.  love ya Misha.  smile

  6. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Love ya, too :-*

    I have to say loving you or Mark is much easier for me than loving, say, SirDent or ColdWarBaby - but I am trying hard smile

    Actually, I think this pretty much answers the original question. I think my current assignment here in this world is to learn to love. Everybody and everything that comes my way.

    I do think we come here to learn. I do think we are not limited to this world, and in a sense we do not disappear after we leave it. I don't know which exactly part of us and to which degree, though. And no Mark, I don't think it is about our bodies' decomposition and elements becoming parts of ground, grass, etc. I think there is something else to it smile

    I do think we where created, and the whole world was created, too. And I think we are the method our creator uses to explore the creation - like we collectively are his senses - in a sense tongue

    That's pretty much the basis I operate off smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      LOL At last!

      I think learning to love people we find offensive is a challenge we have all faced.

      I must have been unclear with the whole sand thing. big_smile

      I think we are no more important than a grain of sand. Not that we become a grain of sand. big_smile  Although we may do. We may also become a fossil or an oil deposit.

      One more question though.

      What makes you believe this?

      1. 0
        Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I disagree, I think humans as sentient beings, have infinite value and that the death of a human lifeform under any circumstances whatsoever is a grave occurence which people have a moral obligation to prevent if possible without risk to their own selves, or <<if they feel up to it>>, with risk to their own lives or livelihoods.

        I liken human beings to precious china, not grains of sand, but, that is my opinion.

      2. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        I did not say I believe this, Mark tongue

        I intentionally used the word "think" to stress that this is not set in stone belief, but just a working assumption. I can't point out specifically what exactly made me thinking like that - this is a sum of my life experience, of what I read and heard and thought of...

        As for the grain of sand or spec of dust - for some reason I got an impression that you said several times here that you don't think anything "spiritual" is left after we die. I might get it wrong of course smile

        As for your debate with Zarm - I too think people are precious. But I long gave up to help some random people on the other side of the globe, or to try to help those who don't accept my help. I think it is a waste of effort. I help those I know personally, mostly when they ask for help - and I think this is the best way to approach the issue. And I'm trying to make my help available to anybody who dares to ask for it  - in a form of my web presence smile

        1. 0
          Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Trying to help those who do not accept your help is a bad thing as you already know, because it wastes your time.

          For me it is bad, not only because it wastes my time but because it is not respectful of other people's <<boundaries>>.  If people do not want help then trying to give it to them is going against what one is trying to accomplish by definition.

          As far as helping people I do not know, globalization as it currently exists imo lends more credence than ever to the idea we are in this thing together as a race.  If I have the time to help people I do not know after already taking the normal time out to help those that I do know and love, then such is my choice and such will I do.

          Everyone has a take on something, and is not that the beauty of life?  That we can all have different ideas and opinions and governments that allow that to happen?  Perhaps this is idealism at it's worst, perhaps its just a sugar coated optimism, but I am an optimist at the core of who I am.

          I am an optimist because pessimism has no vision other than acceptance and subsequent surrender.

          And for me surrender is not an option.  Never say quit, stick it to the man, that's the only way one gets respect in this world.  That is my take on things.

          I came to an understanding for myself last night, that the thing the greeks believed in the thing the french believed in during their construction of their society and the thing that the americans believed in back during the revolutionary war all have striking similiarities and represent the same essential ideal.

          The ideal for people to exist with variances in opinion and belief and even different takes on what constitutes knowledge, and to exist in peace and prosperity and pass this on to their children.  To avoid war, to avoid 100% certainty on any one thing if that negatively affects another person's right to have their own opinion.

          Simply existing without waging war or committing violent acts and instead verbally communicating with each other will be a tremendous achievement for humans.  I hope that I live to see that day when people no longer hurt each other through lies, deception and violence and just simply BE with agreed upon roles that respect their boundaries.

          There are so many people who are seriously hurt that I wonder sometimes why people cannot love without expectations, why people cannot just simply help each other without having the proportions be off so much as far as what is expected in return.

          Why when people go and get help from a minister that minister has to tell them about "god", or why when people goto get help from a social worker that social worker attempts to pressure them into a "pill mentaliy", or why when people are hurt or broken or dying even other people just pass them by as if they do not have the time of day to give them aid even though the person who is doing the passer by lives in the same town as the person in question.  I just do not understand disregard and indifference to the plight of others and I probably never will understand it enough to agree with it.  I also do not understand how people have to expect something in return for their help that is disproportionate to the help they gave, (i,e a minister helps me and expects me to believe in god, or a social worker helps me and expects me to believe a pill will solve my problems).  Is it not good enough that the feeling of helping a person and the money received (or some other form of reciprocation for time and effort that is socially acceptable), is enough?

          Why is it that people cannot just simply be? 

          It is like we are all playing pretend and make believe and if questioned we play pretend about that even.

          In any case these are my thoughts.

        2. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this


          What I have said is I have no idea what is left after we die. No one does. Lots of people have beliefs, and my own belief is there is nothing. I don't know for sure though, and prefer to live my life as though this is it rather than based on the fact that there is a reward later big_smile If someone comes back and proves otherwise, I am open to persuasion.

          I too think people are precious. But not in the sort of global, "everyone is precious." If everyone is precious, no one is.

          That is too much like the christian, "love everyone." approach. And just as hippocritical. I know plenty of christians who claim to love everyone yet at the same time believe their god will condemn those people to an eternity in hellfire.

          Plus, I know plenty of people that to offer them your love is to end up with your throat slit down a back alley somewhere.

          I, like you, offer my help and support to those around me. And I am very choosy whom I "love."

    2. WeddingConsultant profile image82
      WeddingConsultantposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Misha, way to share your beliefs!  Props to you for being so bold as to type out what you believe here...it's admirable.

  7. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    'like we collectively are his senses - in a sense', yea like that idea.
    So does love have to be all or nothing? I see this guy around every so often.
    He is really sharp, a comedian. I love the guy except he hates Arabs. I say to him to his face, "you old fascist Jew biggot. So on the one hand I love the guy in person and his peresonality. On the other hand I hate his racism, or some of his mind. We get along fine. But I think I can both love and hate him at the same time. I don't feel conflicted.

  8. topstuff profile image60
    topstuffposted 8 years ago

    All people cann't be on the right track BUT we all believe we are.

  9. 0
    Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago

    Interesting view Misha, here is my own comprehensively stated:

    I pretty much think that humanity ridding itself of magical thinking is the basis for dis-covering what is really going on behind the veil of nature.

    But as with all agnostics I can say that and I can tell people my opinion but I won't burn you if you don't.  It's just hard for me to watch humanity side track itself over things that might even possibly be proven to have some sort of basis in reality if we could just set aside magical thinking for a thousand years or so and seriously empirically uncover that which is the heart of things, then all could see and there would be very little doubt.  Also, as a result of there being little doubt, there would be very little fear, but the lack of doubt would be founded on evidence that would have been reached in a manner that was grounded in reality and the methods we use to demonstrably achieve understanding.

    I can believe it is god's will for my faith to move a mountain.  I can then get together with a bunch of like minded people and pick up a pickax and together, through slave labor we can move the mountain with faith.

    Alternatively, I can believe that I would like to see that railroad constructed that requires the mountain to be moved, I can goto engineering school and learn how to make and use dynamite.  I can then make the dynamite, plant it, let it go off, wash rinse, repeat and then the mountain will have been moved after me and my crew are done.

    The difference in these two approaches is that in one approach -god's will- people must believe in that god in order for the prophecy to fulfill itself, whereas in the second approach one must gather knowledge and through hard study come to an understanding of things that are built on empirical evidence.  Then said person must put this into practice to accomplish the goal in question.

    While it is true that you must have a certain modicum of emotional trust or "faith" in said community (the scientific one), it is my contention here that such a "belief" is much more respectful of people's rights and personal quests for happiness than the latter even given the factor of the powder having to be manufactured for the sticks and the people who would be paid to do it.

    In my opinion the scientific method is artificial selection at it's best and dogmatic religion represents (for me) an earlier more primal nature that is in tune with social darwinism more than it is anything else.  In order for humans to grow up collectively I sincerely think we should not impose our spiritual understandings through fiat ever and instead we should wait for nature to give it's comprehensive response as we continue to measure and test and probe and dis-cover it's hidden domains, but without making assumptions which cause others to suffer due to various dogmas and their lack of compliance with them.

    Of course, (and this is something I have pondered lately), us humans in our various ways of saying things could just have innate biases that we cannot see past because of various factors and that we all might be saying the same thing unknowingly in different ways, thus making all our collective spiritual knowledge almost like a landscape viewed from different angles.  You might not like my angle if you stood in my spot, and I might not care for your angle if I stood where you were because it wasn't as attractive to me as the spot I picked out for myself, but in the end as long as we are not making war and killing each other or tearing each others to pieces over difference of opinion or possessiveness (like children in a sandbox), then we can continue to have dialogue.

    Dogmas (plural) collectively kill this option and violate people's boundaries and as a result dialogue ends due to undue control and influence exerted over people and their lives.

    In my view there is only one "dogma" and I think it is a necessary evil for the time being, and that is that we all respect each other enough to get along.  If we respected each other we wouldn't have a need for police or military at a minimum (in response to violent crimes).

    Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    My point is why fight and kill each other over the exact how and why of each of those three things in the sentence I just typed above?  Give science a couple thousand years to provide more comprehensive answers and as a species through hard work we can all come to a much more comprehensive picture of what is really going on, and not make premises that are founded on what we wish rather than what is, whose inevitable extrapolation leads to the misery of a vast majority of mankind.

    Love, and let Live.  Easy saying, hard to master.

    The loving part I suppose I have in common with you Misha even though I have my own take on it.  Love is crucial, because without love we are all just so meaningless and machine like.

    Those are my two cents on what is really going on in the world (not that I was asked).

  10. 0
    sandra rinckposted 8 years ago

    sometimes to know too much about our physical world is scarier than to know what has been going on since the begining of man kind. 

    New thoeries and discoveries brings more to the plate about why we even exist, and why we can even know what we do know.  How do we know so much about space here on Earth and out there in space? 

    I only imagine that the struggle among people has always been with freedom.  There is a problem with knowing that I am very much free, but always having a consequence.  A human consequence.

    If we are the only living species like us that can examine, make sense and come up with equations that work, then what is the point?  Why do we push to find out space to save man kind when we know we are not likely to exist forever? 

    If there are other worlds with people just like us, then I would want to know, are they God?  If not, are we?

    God should be put on the table of elements because it is an element that changes behavior, a force that beggs the question. 

    I hardly believe that we are nothing.  This wouldn't make sense.  We are somewhat devine, everyone is, the problem is getting people to understand what it is. 

    Religion pushes out the Spirit.  No one ever had to follow a religion, all anyone ever needed was to know they were free.  Now we know we are not free, we will never be free.  We are condemed to the material world.  On full of knowledge without a purpose, full of wonder for no reason. 

    I beg for something to happen, I know the events are not usually fun these days, but I find myself, wondering always, is it really now.  Is mankind finally going to meet it's maker?

    Would we be herold by an alien God who comes out of a space ship and tells us we were a project. 

    Project X, Generation X, Planet X, the Xfactor.  It doesn't seem so natural to me that we do the things we do.  I do question evolution, not that I don't believe we evolve, but the God element...

    One ball of water sitting in the Seas of Heaven, just us???  Being a freak accident of nature doesn't make sense, humans have the entire Universe, why?  Fish out of water wonder about the sea.  smile

  11. white atlantic profile image62
    white atlanticposted 8 years ago

    welldone misha

    one common problem s we all blame god for our bad luck but actually as the bible says all problems of the earth s because of mans own doings.i think at first earth was so beautiful and it looked pretty well n everything got developed by men made it worse .isnt it?
    Even nowadays billions we member of each countries spend for destructive purposes even worlds smallest countries do so for their survival can we change or turn it for humans wellbeing?
    there may be many job opportunities and giving jobs to laks in the defense sector but iam saying we r spending much much more than that some countries spend billions on each missiles and warships -i tried to say that almost or all problems r by men itself
    n we hv enough sources to live all .n we just do our debates at its best.u know Javaharlal Nehru one of the greatest leaders of Indian republic .he once said abt joining india ,pakn n other small countries around to form one union as a single nation  he mentioned about the savings by leaving other spendings on war -really these nations spend a lot though they hv not the capability iam saying each problem is like this .
    nearly 900 crore years ago(according to the latest information) that big xplosion that all we kow happened thats almost sure  now.REMEMBER JOHN C MATHER N& GEORGE F SMUT WHO SHARED THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR PHYSICS IN 2006 DISCOVERED AN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT  THAT BIG-BANG THEORY. iam not shouting online as anyone f u mentioned earlier but i want u to notice it.

    as for the formation of this carbon the stars of first generation reached their 'dead bed'(according to Chandra Shekhar Boundryd Theory)and explodes as supernovas and formed as star parts n this star parts rich of carbon   got into earths atmosphere.JOHN BARO says in a detailed manner about these type of nearly 18 free parameters that helped the starting of life.(Anthropic Cosmological Principles,Oxford University Press,London).He says that it s a rare chance that all these surcamstances happened accidentially.

    this new science of universe very strictly says  that an unknown power worked for all of these.John Weeler says -he s a Nobel prize winner for Physics-if humanbody s a hardware the 'soul' in it s a software .Weeler finds the presence and determination of a 'universal soul' in the creation of universe.Weeler says the creation  of univere itslf is for the creation of humans .here now this time (ie. after 900 crore years) only the presence of human n his observations remains the 'knowledge'of this big mystery-universe.Thats the presence of human is the identity of the universe.

    its very interesting to read new n new  concepts -the 2nd author of John Baros book -Frank Tipler put forward with one step more.he says life wil remain here forever.Tipler compares human to the comuer instead of Baros comparison of universe.Tipler compares universe  as a total to a computer .(Now this theory s in the book -'THE COMPUTING UNIVERSE' BY Seth Loyd, 2006,Programing the universe,rRandom Houseline,New York).He compares universe as a closed system then the expansion that started after Big-Bang wil turn once into  a  opposite direction n if it came to an end the 'software'wil again give birth to a new life after many many years! smile

  12. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    white altantic -

    This is just about unreadable. And it is rude to use ALL CAPS in this way. Please edit it to make it more reader-friendly.


  13. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    30,000+ broken pieces of precious china in Burma this week.

    600,000+ broken pieces of china in Iraq since the invasion.

    Easily broken in large numbers this precious china big_smile

  14. 0
    Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago

    40+ broken pieces of precious china which were broken by the hands of jack the ripper.

    Your point?

    I am my brothers keeper.

    Stalin once said that one death was a tragedy and that a million deaths was just a statistic.

    I argue here that 1 death is a tragedy and that a million deaths is 999,999 more tragedies.

    It's a grave occurence, this death thing ya know wink

    Like end of existence grave thing, like emotional hurt for those close to the person still in existence grave thing and emotional as well as possible physical hurt of the person experiencing circumstances up to and including death especially if the circumstances involve external violence of any sort towards the person in question.

  15. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    My point is that you use the word "precious," which means (amongst other things):

    Of high cost or worth; valuable.
    Highly esteemed; cherished.
    Dear; beloved

    Which implies that some one values these people.

    Who exactly? You? What are you doing to keep these precious, valuable people alive? Praying? big_smile

    1. 0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I am using it in the valuable sense, as far as what I am doing to keep these precious valuable people alive, for starters I am assigning them the worth they are due which is high.

      Also, I treat them with respect and consider it my honor to to help one who I hold dear as well as help others in proportion to that which I consider beneficial and appropriate.

      While I am not a doctor, doctors do this all the time they do "things" to keep these precious valuable people alive because they swore the Hippocratic Oath.

      It is possible to have a general attitude and general actions which reflect just that.

      Perhaps you do in your own way.  If you do not, then you do not, but I do.

      Concretely I work to make the world a better place by my own actions and support things that preserve life in whatever sphere of influence I find myself in.

      So, you used two examples there.

      In the case of the Iraq war I am vocally against it because 600,000 "precious china" lost needlessly is just that, lost needlessly.

      In the case of Burma I would (if I was not poor) donate money to recovery efforts of those who survived and if there was a project that could make the lives of burmese people safer in regards future disasters of that type and it were reasonable then I might reasonably support such an effort.

      That is what I would and do "concretely" do.

      Prayer is an illusion of help not actual help, just so you understand I will make it very clear to you I do not believe in the existence of any god or higher power other than the laws which govern the closed system we are currently in (the known universe), and those laws I do not believe in or worhsip as if they had any magical or supernatural power I simply know they exist, seek to understand them and then proceed to fulfill that thirst for knowledge through learning and the subsequent understanding and eventual wisdom that usually proceeds from such endeavors.

      If I want to be amused with illusions I watch david copperfield or darren brown or criss angel perform or I pop in The Illusionist, or The Prestige DVD, I do not pray as it is a severely flawed endeavor at best.

      To whom would I pray?  I answer to no one.  Am I proud of that?  No.

      It is the way things are, always have been, and always will be for every human being that ever has, currently does, or will exist, in any way, shape, or form.

      At least that is what the current evidence indicates within the obvious context I have just mentioned.


  16. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago


    Well, I don't see how "assigning them the worth they are due which is high," is any different than praying. big_smile

    Or any more effective. Nor treating them with respect. How can you treat some one you have never met with respect? Especially since they are now dead. And I think we both agree that dead means dead. No second chance, no burning in hell for all eternity.

    Can you honestly say the things you are "doing," are making a difference to these precious pieces of china in Iraq or Burma? Do you genuinely believe that donating money to a charity would make a difference? Or even get to whom it was supposed to? Or that you government listens to your opinion on Iraq? and will do what you think should be done?

    If, and this is a big if. If the governments and corporations, and churches and oil companies and everyone wanted to do something and really treat people like precious pieces of china. Maybe, just maybe that would make a difference.

    Even then, a cyclone or hurricane or plane crash or plague or whatever would bring you straight back to reality.

  17. 0
    Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago

    The reality of what?  That people will die and there is nothing you can do to stop it in certain cases?

    I disdain your fatalism, but w/e that philosophical approach is your choice.

    Of course people die and that is reality.

    Millions of doctors "assigning them the worth they are due which is high" and saving people's lives is a daily occurence in every ER room around the world.

    There are a lot of godless doctors who take the hippocratic oath, and "assign them the worth they are due which is high".  There are a lot of doctors (probably including godless ones) who "assign them the worth they are due which is high" and are helping the burmese people right now because either they are burmese doctors or they are outside doctors who want to help.

    Again, your point?

  18. Mark Knowles profile image61
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    My point is that you "assigning them their worth which is high," and donating to charity and saying, "the war in Iraq is wrong," makes no difference to them. None. It is no different than being a christian, going to church, saying you love everyone and praying that they are safe.

    The only difference is you are not saying people will burn in hell if they don't do as you do big_smile

    As for the millions of doctors - if it wasn't for the millions of soldiers, millions of alcohol and fast food salesmen, millions of shoddy toy sellers, millions of dangerous chemical manufacturers, millions of car manufacturers etc, we wouldn't even need those doctors. And would certainly treat the nurses and doctors better than we do. They would be at the top of the tree instead of the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.

    1. 0
      Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

      What the situation "might be" if the world were a better place might just depend on the attitude of those doctors and the implied pacifism rubbing off on the people and things you just mentioned in the here and now.

      If you want to "believe", because that is what it is, just a belief, that taking action to make things right in the form of protesting a war, or giving to charity or even better administering charity directly (like a doctor) does not make a difference then you believe that and that is your belief (albeit an irrational one).

      Millions of doctors helping people would stilll exist even if those millions of soliders alcohol and fast food salesmen and everything else did not, due to natural disease in the environment we live in, (and also if you want to argue this particular point you better have some pretty solid archeological/biomedical evidence to back this notion up)

      That being said, millions of doctors helping people because they are "assigning them their worth which is high" exist before your world could ever exist in the manner in which you portray it.  Perhaps that is what you wish for, perhaps that is what you hope would be the case, but in the order of things people change from worse to better, (if situations, peoples and things are to actually get better), and people realizing that life is of high value and taking action and encouraging other people to realize that too as well as doing good things is not equivalent to goin to church, saying you love everyone, and praying they are safe.  It really is not and if you cannot see how it is not then oh well.  There may be some people who do both, but both are not equivalent, and if both are then gee golly there are a lot of redundant characters who inhabit this planet! 

      I will attempt to explain.  On the one hand you have the world as it exists (doctors and soldiers and all), and in order to get to a place where killing and hurting people does not happen, life needs to be viewed in a manner that it is not "expendable" and that people can make a difference and sometimes make a difference by not acting on the impulse when they feel the urge to kill, maim, or commit violent acts and instead communicate and try to understand what it is they are having problems with.  Fatalism of the sort you are hinting at undoes this on a lesser scale to christian fatalism that puts these people in the wars in which they end their own existences in in the first place.  However I would distinguish this sort of fatalism with the attitude people had in the french revolution or in our own american revolution wherein their very lives and freedom's were at stake and they had a survival imperative to fight in order to remain free men and free women.  This as history has shown was quite grounded in reality, similiar to the aspirations of people who longed to be free from the totalitarian hands of the Medeival Inquisition and actually did something about it instead of sitting around and praying to "god".

      Also, on the one hand you have people going to church, praying to god, and saying how they love each other.

      On the other hand you have people giving time to the red cross, protesting war, and having lots of thoroughly enjoyable sex with each other (some of which may result in a child being born if they decide not to use protection), and actually making a visible difference in all three cases (vietnam war case in point).

      These two scenarios existed mutually somewhat in the lives of vietnam era war people who did not support the war, but they are not equal to each other anymore than saying jesus is god is equal to saying my dog is god.  To contend that those two scenarios are equal is irrational because in one your hoping for something to happen and in the other you are translating a kind of hope into action, not just sitting around praying for it to happen.

      On a lighter note I do agree that the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are pretty corrupt given they are "at the top of the tree" so to speak.  Pretty damn corrupt as a matter of fact.


      1. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Well, I don't have time right now to do the whole thing so I will go with just this for now.

        This is a list of the protests that I know about against the invasion of Iraq:

            * 1 Prior to the invasion of Iraq
                  o 1.1 September 12, 2002
                  o 1.2 October 26, 2002
                  o 1.3 October 31, 2002
                  o 1.4 November 9, 2002
                  o 1.5 January 16, 2003
                  o 1.6 January 18, 2003
                  o 1.7 February 15, 2003
                  o 1.8 March 8, 2003
                  o 1.9 March 15, 2003
                  o 1.10 March 16, 2003
                  o 1.11 March 19, 2003
            * 2 Invasion to the fall of Baghdad
                  o 2.1 March 20, 2003
                  o 2.2 March 21, 2003
                  o 2.3 March 22–23, 2003
                  o 2.4 March 24, 2003
                  o 2.5 March 25, 2003
                  o 2.6 March 27, 2003
                  o 2.7 March 28, 2003
                  o 2.8 March 29, 2003
                  o 2.9 March 30, 2003
                  o 2.10 April 7, 2003
            * 3 After the fall of Baghdad
                  o 3.1 April 12, 2003
                  o 3.2 October 25, 2003
                  o 3.3 June 4, 2004
                  o 3.4 June 5, 2004
                  o 3.5 June 27, 2004
                  o 3.6 August 29, 2004
                  o 3.7 October 2, 2004
                  o 3.8 October 17, 2004
                  o 3.9 November 30, 2004
                  o 3.10 January 20, 2005
                  o 3.11 March 19, 2005
                  o 3.12 June 21, 2005
                  o 3.13 August 6, 2005 to August 31, 2005
                  o 3.14 September 24, 2005
                  o 3.15 November 4–5, 2005
                  o 3.16 March 18 – March 20, 2006
                  o 3.17 April 1, 2006
                  o 3.18 April 29, 2006
                  o 3.19 May 22–31, 2006
                  o 3.20 August 9, 2006
                  o 3.21 September 21, 2006
                  o 3.22 September 23, 2006
                  o 3.23 October 5, 2006
                  o 3.24 November 3, 2006
                  o 3.25 January 4, 2007
                  o 3.26 January 10–11, 2007
                  o 3.27 January 27, 2007
                  o 3.28 March 11, 2007
                  o 3.29 March 16, 2007
                  o 3.30 March 17, 2007
                  o 3.31 May 21, 2007–
                  o 3.32 September 15, 2007
                  o 3.33 September 29, 2007
                  o 3.34 March 19, 2008

        All over the world. the US, the UK, Europe, Australia. Millions of people were involved in these protests, and here are a few links to some of the organizations involved.

        Critical Mass
        Port Militarization Resistance

        This photo was shot in September last year:

        I "believe" that they made no difference. But, if you "believe," they made a difference, you are welcome to show me other wise big_smile

  19. 0
    Zarm Nefilinposted 8 years ago

    Bah, that is so one sided mark.  Just because the war has not ended yet does not mean those protests did not make a difference.

    Protesters all over the world are protesting the Chinese treatment of the Tibetan people and China is in a real political tight spot.  Does that mean that the olympic games won't still happen in China?  No, probably not, it will most likely still happen.  However China is going to get hurt pretty bad in the area of foreign relations for the way they are bungling the whole affair, which might force them to rethink down the line the way they handle their relations to the Tibetan people, and possibly, somewhere down the line change that.

    I give up man, seriously I do.  Protests are designed to show dissatisfaction with things, so if Obama gets elected or Hillary get elected and the war in Iraq comes to an end then perhaps I could claim that I was correct? In regards to this (with you) I doubt so.  Protests make a difference even if they do not bring about the thing they primarily seek.

    Just look at Bush's approval ratings and what the American people think of the Iraq war.  Surely all those protests all around the world made a difference in opinion?  If I see my co worker protesting it makes me stop and think about what it is their protesting.  That is a difference.  Even if the war doesn't end there are people who will protest it.  There are others out there who are prepared to take even greater measures than that and they want Ron Paul in power.

    Just because you cannot see a difference does not mean there is not one being made.  The war ending is not the only difference protesting a war can make.  If enough popular support is garnered for the idea that the war should end, then someone gets elected who does not support that war and the war ends.  So until we see who is the next president I am afraid I will just have to say "I give up".


    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      LOL - You sound just like the christians.

      "Just because you cannot see god, doesn't mean he's not there."

      Seriously, I asked you to show me what difference it made to the people of Iraq.

      Bush's approval rating. That should make a massive difference to the dead ones. So, who gets elected determines whether or not the protests made a difference?

      I will leave you with an analogy. As you have given up proving it made a difference, and I have chosen to ignore all the evidence you have shown me.

      Let us say you are 10 years old again. You are outside bouncing a ball.

      You decide you are going to bounce that ball 100 times.

      Your Mother calls you and tells you to stop bouncing the ball because it is time for dinner.

      You call back, "coming," and keep bouncing the ball. 25

      She shouts again. 30

      You shout back, "OK, I'm coming." 40

      She shouts again. 50

      You shout back, "All right, I am coming." And keep bouncing the ball. 60

      "This is the last time I'm telling you." 70

      "Coming now." 80

      "Zarm if you don't come in this second, there is no dessert for you." 90

      "All right, no need to get angry." 100

      Stop bouncing the ball and go in.

  20. Misha profile image74
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Yeah Zarm,

    I can relate on much of what you are saying smile As for surrender - read here http://hubpages.com/hub/Surrender---Exc … f-Creation