Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
John_Little

[*] posted on 2-10-2017 at 19:25
They tried that once. They called it "House of Cards"
JackInCT

[*] posted on 2-10-2017 at 17:05
I would wonder IF it would be possible to get ALL elected politicians to wear body cameras; after all I just can't imagine a group of individuals who more exhibit the essence of the epitome of honesty, high standards and values, etc., and an added bonus would be that anyone watching such a vid would immediately come to the conclusion that there is hope for all of us yet which would almost automatically lead to a 'live happily ever after' state.
John_Little

[*] posted on 2-10-2017 at 09:06
Same in the UK. Ours are often going mysteriously on the blink.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 2-10-2017 at 00:02
Quote:
[quote
...He wore socks depicting pigs on them, as an insulting reference to police in the United States.


The vast majority of police in the USA do not have/wear body cameras, and IMO it's not because of their costs or the server storage fees for the digital files that are created by the cameras.

ITS SIMPLY THEY DO NOT WANT THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THEY REALLY DO ON THE JOB FROM THE MOMENT THEY LEAVE THE POLICE STATION UNTIL THEIR SHIFT ENDS. They are afraid that the Freedom Of Information laws will allow the public to retrieve those files, not to mention that any derogatory comments they spout will result in disciplinary action that could include termination. There are bona fide lawsuits in recent history that some municipal police departments deliberately target minority groups. I am NOT saying in this post that minority groups never goad/taunt the police. The police for sure are used by local politicians for their own agenda re the minority vote.
scholar

[*] posted on 1-10-2017 at 23:05
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
TO me, kneeling before the flag is every bit as respectful as standing to attention. In many ways, more so, because it also indicates subservience.

The manner by which one shows respect toward the American Flag, during the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, was defined by the U.S. Congress.
Quote:
Section 4 of the Flag Code states:

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.", should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute."


The fellow who started this one-knee-during-the-anthem controversy did not mean to show respect. He wore socks depicting pigs on them, as an insulting reference to police in the United States.
scholar

[*] posted on 1-10-2017 at 22:49
Here are some background historical references:

Quote:
Pub. L. 107–293, §1, Nov. 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 2057 , provided that: "Congress finds the following:

"(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: 'Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

"(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the 'Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

"(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled 'Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: 'God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'

"(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: 'If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'

"(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: 'Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'

"(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, 'a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'

"(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: 'It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'

scholar

[*] posted on 1-10-2017 at 22:47
Quote:
Originally posted by JackInCT
I vaguely recall that this went up to the US Supreme court who ruled that it did not violate church-state separation (like hell it didn't).

The Constitution never says that there must be church-state separation, or even that churches are restricted from influencing the government.

What it does say is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

An establishment of religion, made by a law of Congress, meant that there was to be no State Church, such as the Anglican Church in Britain, or the State Church of Sweden, or any of the other Nation-states which supported a single denominational church (e.g. with tax monies).
marymary100

[*] posted on 1-10-2017 at 22:34
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
When I lived in America there was an expectation that I would participate in the morning pledge despite not being American.

If "participate" means to say the pledge, as if you owed allegiance to the U.S. as your country, then that makes no sense.confused2

If you were required to be present and show courteous respect (e.g. not talking to someone, etc.)--I'd consider that appropriate.


I was expected, as the teacher, to lead the pledge every morning and do the whole arm across the chest thing.
scholar

[*] posted on 1-10-2017 at 22:24
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
When I lived in America there was an expectation that I would participate in the morning pledge despite not being American.

If "participate" means to say the pledge, as if you owed allegiance to the U.S. as your country, then that makes no sense.confused2

If you were required to be present and show courteous respect (e.g. not talking to someone, etc.)--I'd consider that appropriate.
John_Little

[*] posted on 1-10-2017 at 08:08
:D
JackInCT

[*] posted on 1-10-2017 at 02:10
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
...It would make for an interesting court case. e.g. charged with burning a flag as opposed to burning a piece of paper.


USA flag burning has definitely made its way through the court system. I'm reluctant to attempt a summary in a board such as this as there are a good many if, ands, and buts on such legal matters.

By the way, in my musing on imponderables, I split hairs on Adam & Eve, and wondered if the result of their behavior was perhaps due in no small part to the fact that they might have been teenagers at the time--people did "marry" much earlier in ye olde days. Some posters on this board have, let's say, made academic type allowances for the "underdeveloped" teenage brain re responsibility for their actions.

Continuing with imponderables, I am NOT aware of ANY bible that speaks to whether Adam & Eve had access to an attorney, were able to invoke their right to due process, and most important of all whether they had the right to an appeal of the decision. Nor was there a report presented to the "court" of any mitigating or extenuating circumstances. AND lastly I just have to wonder why instead of the "sentence" handed down, they weren't put on probation. Just consider if they were put on probation, how much the history of homo sapiens would be different as to how we arrived at the point where we are now.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 1-10-2017 at 00:56
I'm not that far from your thinking on the imponderable, Jack. You do realise that God made us all perfect, He's just not finished with You lot, yet. :D

The common argument is that God did not want us to love Him because he made us that way, but that he wanted us to CHOOSE to love him, which is why he gave us free will. To give us a choice, he placed a tree in the Garden of Eden and said, "Of ALL the trees, you may eat, except this one" (Leigh paraphrase). For no other reason than it gave them a choice. In effect, there was only ONE RULE, "Don't eat it". Of course we all know the rest of the story. So, in effect, we were initially made perfect but chose imperfection, and it was all downhill from there.

Respect, like many other things, must be earned. In this case, the Flag, and not showing it due respect, is an interesting topic. In your home country, you flag is the representative of your society, and, usually, the inhabitants are respectful of their own society. Other flags, not necessarily so. Same with the various national anthems. Whether 'tis Treason to show disrespect to an inanimate object is an interesting question. It would make for an interesting court case. e.g. charged with burning a flag as opposed to burning a piece of paper.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 30-9-2017 at 14:20
An online dictionary defines "imponderable" as "incapable of being weighed or evaluated with exactness"; I would add to that, 'incapable of being understood' [and therefore something that cannot be proven true or false].

So I consider this post as being on a subject that is imponderable but nonetheless should NOT be above the pale of discourse simply because of that; and the burden of proof (to the contrary) that there is such a thing falls on those who nonetheless consider it true.

If homo sapiens is imperfect in such matters as their behavior, etc., how then it is possible that he/she could have in their cognitive toolkit any means at all of recognizing perfection [I don't mean their NOT being able to understand what perfection is, but somehow simply being able torecognize that it is possible for it to exist], to include recognizing such a feature in an entity that he/she categories as a theologically based supreme being, i. e., prove to me that any belief system that includes recognizing that a perfect diety is possible/TRUE if you can't possibly ever recognize perfection to begin with.

My post here is not some attempt at philosophical sophistry, but to challenge why some people believe in what they believe in especially as it applies to paying tribute/homage/whatever to some soverign state symbol that outrages those who feel that NOT doing so is some form of treason (IMO it goes much, much deeper than their stated objection that it is 'disrespectful'). Ditto including the "under god" phrase in the USA Pledge Of Allegiance in a pluralistic society--but then again in some quarters a "pluralistic society" is nothing more than an expedient politically correct statement, especially when so many Americans truly wish that some immigrants would all pick up and leave and go back to wherever they came from.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 30-9-2017 at 09:01
To me, in that context, subservience is meant to indicate that, "In my way, I accept your superiority (in a good way), and wish to show my humble respect and am willing to offer my service to you." In this case, the flag. I (Personally) respect the flag as the representative of our country and offer my respect and service to that flag as the representative of our country.

It's an interesting argument, re: an "imperfect" God. To me, the question is one that I cannot rationalise and will be on on the list of questions that I will have when I meet may maker. Another one will be, (although I can, in some ways, rationalise) why did you allow Satan the power that he was given, knowing what would happen? Given that God is all knowing. And, given that I love making music so much, why is it that I am almost tone deaf and can hardly keep time to save myself?
John_Little

[*] posted on 29-9-2017 at 16:28
Good for you, Jack.

:-)
JackInCT

[*] posted on 29-9-2017 at 14:58
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
.... In many ways, more so, because it also indicates subservience....


Is subservience suppose to create, as in add to, the value of 'the greater good', OR, to put it another way, will refusing to practice subservience diminish/harm the greater good in any way/shape/or form?

There is this overwhelming very long standing premise in Christianity that their god is perfect. Why can't their god be imperfect??? Why can't god be simply less flawed than homo sapiens? Why can't homo sapiens practice adoration/love of a flawed god?

IMO there's far too little critical thinking, and a resultant comprehension, on matters pertaining to any religion's concept of their god; refusing to practice what is supposedly the "standard" for respecting a nation's flag/anthem that for all the wrong reasons is perceived by more than just a few as subversion and is perceived as actually jeopardizing the existence of the society they are a part of. Those who perceive such behavior as disrespect, etc., are the Enemy Within cause they are not only intolerant, but very likely trivialize the internal problems of a society that, for them, ARE NOT PROBLEMS AT ALL, i. e., the segment of society that sees them as significant problems are trying to put one over on the rest of society for some personal gain/advantage at the expense of the rest of their society.
Katzy

[*] posted on 29-9-2017 at 10:29
My word is my bond. I don't need an icon to prove that.

To the best of my knowledge, I've never been caught in a lie.

That's my bond and I'm proud of it, too.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 29-9-2017 at 02:53
I AM a devout Christian, however, I WILL NOT swear on a Stack of Bibles. My bible tells me to not swear by anything. I will, however make an affirmation of oath.
TO me, kneeling before the flag is every bit as respectful as standing to attention. In many ways, more so, because it also indicates subservience.

I have no idea about the American "Oath of Allegiance" but, I could see some issues in a predominantly "non Christian" nation. Much like women in Eastern Countries where they are forced to wear clothing that is against their set of beliefs.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 28-9-2017 at 22:20
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
When I lived in America there was an expectation that I would participate in the morning pledge despite not being American.


The current NFL "taking a knee" debacle, highlights the fact that loyalty to an inanimate symbol of a country is not always the way forward.

The online arguments are being driven by Russian bots and people for some reason but where do you Americans stand on the issue?


[I am highlighting the fact that the password access to this part of the forum has been removed as per Jack's request. Play nice.]


I will never ever say the Pledge of Allegiance or sing the Star Spangled Banner.

Possibly no one on this board, i. e., someone who posts regularly, was around when the words "under god" was inserted via US Congress law into the Pledge. [insert every known obscenity here] good people whose religious faith does not have a "god" exactly like the Christian 'god', but still has an entity that SOMEChristians feel free to insist is 'close enough' to their Christian god have to recite the pledge with the phrase 'under god'. I vaguely recall that this went up to the US Supreme court who ruled that it did not violate church-state separation (like hell it didn't). Ditto re swearing on a bible such as an oath of office, etc.,. Tyranny by the majority is alive and well.

Buffalo Springfield Lyrics
"For What It's Worth"

There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking' their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, "hooray for our side"

It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away

We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

We better stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

We better stop
Now, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

We better stop
Children, what's that sound?
Everybody look - what's going down?

Writer(s): Stephen Stills (1966)
marymary100

[*] posted on 28-9-2017 at 18:46
When I lived in America there was an expectation that I would participate in the morning pledge despite not being American.


The current NFL "taking a knee" debacle, highlights the fact that loyalty to an inanimate symbol of a country is not always the way forward.

The online arguments are being driven by Russian bots and people for some reason but where do you Americans stand on the issue?


[I am highlighting the fact that the password access to this part of the forum has been removed as per Jack's request. Play nice.]