Ron Paulitics

justinhaddeland posted:

The big bang? I am absolutely sure that did not happen. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind. Am I claiming that it is fact? Of course not. There is no way for any human to know that as fact, as much as some try to claim they do. Please stop subscribing to the "If you don't agree, you are misinformed" idea. It is not the way intelligent people think

The big bang as a theory, in my opinion, is completely contrary to life on this planet. However I realize that other individuals may hold it as a possible theory for explaining our planets current existence.

Would you like to explain how the big bang is contrary to life on Earth?

A collision of that magnitude would be the biggest destructive force that has ever been suggested. Any organisms existing on any bodies in discussion would be wiped out. Furthermore, a collision of that size would not produce spherical masses, nor could less spherical masses be smoothed out over the years, as there is no friction in space.

I'd say -- the philosophical answer to your question would be, the question: "OK, so there are two kinds of promises I am faced with, an opposition. This is not only between east and west, but within east and west there are obviously endless subdivisions. More fundamentally, is it possible to maintain an opposition between two 'schools', regardless of their scope? (Continental/British, East/West, Liberalism/Conservativism, Yin/Yang) To what extent are 'schools' really an accurate representation of philosophical thought? What about those (countless) philosophers of history who deny the existence of schools? Of course, schools are based around geography and culture. But are these elements superficial or profound? What is the nature of culture? Why have very few philosophers to date focused on 'culture' (being relegated to anthropology, etc.) despite what appears to be an obvious point? To what extent would the logic of philosopher X deny or affirm the exitence of culture?"

That is -- rather than follow through with some notion you have -- blindly -- it seems kind of important to take philosophy as an intimate discipline -- the most immediate discipline imaginable. There is no initiation into philosophy -- it's always right there with you -- and there doesn't seem to be any 'nose-to-the-grindstone' notion of mastery. So -- if you kind of follow your instinct of pursuing the most fundamental questions -- which is basically the discipline of philosophy -- this should lead you not to a smattering of eastern/western readings (a 'comparative' discipline -- and there are very major flaws with any sort of 'comparative', substitutional, or metaphorical system) but rather -- perhaps -- to a critique of anthropology or metaphor... Paul de Man?

WARNING!

EXTREME GRANOLA TENDENCIES BELOW

(I'm not kidding)

I refuse to vaccinate my children.

The reasons are many and I feel strongly in my beliefs.

Let me quote directly from the Merck website PI for the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine (emphasis is mine). http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi...i/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

1. Gross. I don't want crap filtered through CHICKEN EMBRYOS or BOVINE FETUSES injected into my child. No thanks. Also, the recombinant human albumin is a protein found in blood. Human blood. OTHER PEOPLE'S BLOOD. Again, no thanks.

2. I don't care HOW rare these side effects are, there's no way I'm putting my young, fragile child at risk for ANY of these. No.

3. That's just one group of vaccines. Others, I have found, are not run through chick embryo or bovine fetus, but rather the cells of human fetuses. How might one get cells from a human fetus? Right? Think about that. I don't want product from what could potentially be an abortion being injected into my kids.

4. Some vaccines are still made using methods that could be considered as animal cruelty. That's not my thing at all, so no thanks on those.

5. There's no need to get vaccinated if you are eating healthy. They can't inject the virus into healthy cells and get it to propagate; they have to use unhealthy cells in tests for these things.

So there are some of my reasons. Another huge reason for me is all kinds of though, which is, "How do you know the companies aren't lying about what's in the needle? They could have been ordered to put things like sterility drugs into a certain batch that's sent to a specific area. How do you know this isn't going to happen?"

There's your extra long post of hippie drivel for today. PM me if you'd like more information; I don't want to bore the rest of you but I had to at least get the information out there for people who might be interested in learning more.

(I won't argue the point of "the benefits outweigh the risks" - that's a matter of opinion and I'm stuck like glue to mine. Period. Nothing outweighs risk to my offspring.)