Test CircleCount PRO now!
Login now

Not your profile? Login and get free access to your reports and analysis.

Tags

Sign in

No tag added here yet.
You can login on CircleCount to add some tags here.

Are you missing a tag in the list of available tags? You can suggest new tags here.

Login now

Do you want to see a more detailed chart? Check your settings and define your favorite chart type.

Or click here to get the detailed chart only once.

Daniel Voisin has been at 1 events

HostFollowersTitleDateGuestsLinks
Google+12,238,244The Google+ team will be sharing a few updates. RSVP to this event to watch the broadcast live.A Morning with Google+2013-10-29 17:30:0033721  

Shared Circles including Daniel Voisin

Shared Circles are not available on Google+ anymore, but you can find them still here.

The Google+ Collections of Daniel Voisin

110751695775382369581 has no public Google+ Collections yet.

Activity

Average numbers for the latest posts (max. 50 posts, posted within the last 4 weeks)

7
comments per post
0
reshares per post
4
+1's per post

709
characters per posting

Top posts in the last 50 posts

Most comments: 49

posted image

2016-02-02 04:22:43 (49 comments; 0 reshares; 4 +1s)Open 

Is it about time Dawkins maybe sits down and examines what it is exactly that he believes in? 

Most reshares: 2

posted image

2016-01-31 02:47:30 (3 comments; 2 reshares; 9 +1s)Open 

This is something that bears thinking about.

http://www.social2.com/i-was-honestly-moved-while-reading-this/

Most plusones: 24

posted image

2016-01-30 22:11:41 (15 comments; 1 reshares; 24 +1s)Open 

When nine eleven happened one of the most shocking things was that people found it so shocking. I was twenty one at the time, very politically aware and active in a time before intense social media, and had been learning about American involvement in the middle east and elsewhere. That someone had finally attacked America on American soil didn't come as a shock in the least. It was inevitable.

The media response was depressing. Instead of investigating what might have caused this by looking deeper into the problem they quickly settled on a consensus: these people were religious fanatics of an inherently violent religion and hated our freedom. The phrase they hate our freedom was repeated over and over again.

That idea was of course basically a lie. But it was the only response that could maintain the illusion that America was the greatest good in the world that had never done a... more »

Latest 50 posts

posted image

2016-02-06 18:06:52 (12 comments; 0 reshares; 7 +1s)Open 

Hey all. I'm new to vaping and got into it mostly to quit smoking and save some money. Still a huge struggle to not spark up an analogue but now that I've convinced my wife indoor vaping isn't going to kill her or the children it's coming along great.

Anyways I've struck a deal with her that if I can stay off analogues entirely for a good month or so I get to dump some money into an upgrade from the EVOD 2 below. So I'm looking for some insight into what's involved, what some good brands are, and so on.

So far I've been thinking of the sub box or nano from Kangertech but suggestions for other brands or kits would be appreciated. 

Hey all. I'm new to vaping and got into it mostly to quit smoking and save some money. Still a huge struggle to not spark up an analogue but now that I've convinced my wife indoor vaping isn't going to kill her or the children it's coming along great.

Anyways I've struck a deal with her that if I can stay off analogues entirely for a good month or so I get to dump some money into an upgrade from the EVOD 2 below. So I'm looking for some insight into what's involved, what some good brands are, and so on.

So far I've been thinking of the sub box or nano from Kangertech but suggestions for other brands or kits would be appreciated. ___

posted image

2016-02-06 17:49:06 (3 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s)Open 

What bunk.

I've been vaping in an attempt to quit and while I'm not off analogues entirely yet, I've cut my usage down 75% in a single day. I've tried the patch and gum and they never helped nearly that quickly.

Of course there is the argument you're just getting addicted to something else. Well yeah. So what?

That's like criticizing an alcoholic for getting addicted to bubble tea instead of liquor. Some of us are just weak willed and prone to positive feedback loops. 

What bunk.

I've been vaping in an attempt to quit and while I'm not off analogues entirely yet, I've cut my usage down 75% in a single day. I've tried the patch and gum and they never helped nearly that quickly.

Of course there is the argument you're just getting addicted to something else. Well yeah. So what?

That's like criticizing an alcoholic for getting addicted to bubble tea instead of liquor. Some of us are just weak willed and prone to positive feedback loops. ___

posted image

2016-02-06 17:04:00 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

Only took four attempts. Jesus. Much harder but so so awesome.

#xcom2

Only took four attempts. Jesus. Much harder but so so awesome.

#xcom2___

posted image

2016-02-06 13:53:35 (1 comments; 1 reshares; 9 +1s)Open 

Hahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahaha___

posted image

2016-02-06 02:34:12 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

I will get to find out very very soon... 

I will get to find out very very soon... ___

posted image

2016-02-06 00:44:40 (2 comments; 0 reshares; 3 +1s)Open 

The greatest thing I have seen thus far in 2016.
...perhaps this century.

#Leia   #Han   #Ben  ( #Kylo )

The greatest thing I have seen thus far in 2016.
...perhaps this century.

#Leia   #Han   #Ben  ( #Kylo )___

posted image

2016-02-05 15:52:25 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 3 +1s)Open 

A couple of our little busy beavers enjoying a regional delicacy

♪ That's what your appendix is for..   #Breakfast   #MeanwhileInCanada  
via @evilpez4 - http://shrd.by/tDEhfc

Tweet me up https://twitter.com/NSRasta 
Try a Gram https://www.instagram.com/novascotiarasta/  
MyTube https://www.youtube.com/user/novascotiarasta/ 
Pin Me https://www.pinterest.com/novascotiarasta/ 

Rasta's Google Plus Collections  http://shrd.by/b9gte9 
 #Music #Travel #Photos #Taglines #Funnies and #More 

It's all about #Ethics ; #Share the #Bell -pedia 
Community - Google+ - http://shrd.by/y2cweX 

#Trees   #Beaver   #Canada   #Canadian   #Kids   #Bark   #Survival  

A couple of our little busy beavers enjoying a regional delicacy

♪ That's what your appendix is for..   #Breakfast   #MeanwhileInCanada  
via @evilpez4 - http://shrd.by/tDEhfc

Tweet me up https://twitter.com/NSRasta 
Try a Gram https://www.instagram.com/novascotiarasta/  
MyTube https://www.youtube.com/user/novascotiarasta/ 
Pin Me https://www.pinterest.com/novascotiarasta/ 

Rasta's Google Plus Collections  http://shrd.by/b9gte9 
 #Music #Travel #Photos #Taglines #Funnies and #More 

It's all about #Ethics ; #Share the #Bell -pedia 
Community - Google+ - http://shrd.by/y2cweX 

#Trees   #Beaver   #Canada   #Canadian   #Kids   #Bark   #Survival  ___

posted image

2016-02-05 13:58:49 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 2 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2016-02-05 13:08:51 (2 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2016-02-02 04:22:43 (49 comments; 0 reshares; 4 +1s)Open 

Is it about time Dawkins maybe sits down and examines what it is exactly that he believes in? 

Is it about time Dawkins maybe sits down and examines what it is exactly that he believes in? ___

posted image

2016-02-02 03:58:15 (20 comments; 1 reshares; 4 +1s)Open 

Is it about time Dawkins maybe sits down and examines what it is exactly that he believes in? 

Is it about time Dawkins maybe sits down and examines what it is exactly that he believes in? ___

posted image

2016-02-01 13:38:47 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

Seriously Google. You've been doing this with this route for a while now. I've learned to actually check the time, but still, isn't there a process to flag a contradiction like this? 

Seriously Google. You've been doing this with this route for a while now. I've learned to actually check the time, but still, isn't there a process to flag a contradiction like this? ___

posted image

2016-02-01 04:07:48 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2016-02-01 04:04:34 (2 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2016-01-31 02:47:30 (3 comments; 2 reshares; 9 +1s)Open 

This is something that bears thinking about.

http://www.social2.com/i-was-honestly-moved-while-reading-this/

This is something that bears thinking about.

http://www.social2.com/i-was-honestly-moved-while-reading-this/___

posted image

2016-01-31 02:35:45 (26 comments; 0 reshares; 18 +1s)Open 

First thing I have to say is profile posting this shit is a prime example of double speak. Free thought my ass. Just a bunch of anti-government right wing bullshit dressed up as questioning authority when it's really about resisting moving society forward.

With that out of the way to the article itself. A couple in British Columbia (which is in Canada for those not in the know) have been found guilty of assault after "spanking" their child when she was caught sexting. I've put the "spanking" in quotes because they didn't use their hand, arguing "hands are for love and compassion", so instead used a plastic hockey mini-stick and skipping rope.

What I really love here, besides the fact the state took a giant shit on their Biblical beliefs, is the stark rationality and adherence to evidence. The judge commented:

“In this day and agea... more »

These parents are facing jail time and their daughter could be placed in foster care, is this justice?___First thing I have to say is profile posting this shit is a prime example of double speak. Free thought my ass. Just a bunch of anti-government right wing bullshit dressed up as questioning authority when it's really about resisting moving society forward.

With that out of the way to the article itself. A couple in British Columbia (which is in Canada for those not in the know) have been found guilty of assault after "spanking" their child when she was caught sexting. I've put the "spanking" in quotes because they didn't use their hand, arguing "hands are for love and compassion", so instead used a plastic hockey mini-stick and skipping rope.

What I really love here, besides the fact the state took a giant shit on their Biblical beliefs, is the stark rationality and adherence to evidence. The judge commented:

“In this day and age any reasonable parent would be concerned about a teenager sending nude pictures of him or herself via a cell phone or any other electronic device. The pitfalls and potential dangers of such activities are well reported. Such behaviours can lead to bullying and even suicide,” wrote De Walle.

“To suggest that responding to such acts by a teenaged daughter, (14 going on 15 years), by spanking her with an object would be educative or corrective is simply not believable or acceptable by any measure of current social consensus.”

So yes, the Bible might say sparing the rod will spoil the child, the parents might believe this, but the reality is it isn't educative and isn't corrective.

I also need to add that by fourteen years of age a parent should have had several very frank conversations about the dangers of sexting and about sexuality in general. I'm sure though if these parents are so Biblical as to beat their children that likely never took place.

posted image

2016-01-30 22:11:41 (15 comments; 1 reshares; 24 +1s)Open 

When nine eleven happened one of the most shocking things was that people found it so shocking. I was twenty one at the time, very politically aware and active in a time before intense social media, and had been learning about American involvement in the middle east and elsewhere. That someone had finally attacked America on American soil didn't come as a shock in the least. It was inevitable.

The media response was depressing. Instead of investigating what might have caused this by looking deeper into the problem they quickly settled on a consensus: these people were religious fanatics of an inherently violent religion and hated our freedom. The phrase they hate our freedom was repeated over and over again.

That idea was of course basically a lie. But it was the only response that could maintain the illusion that America was the greatest good in the world that had never done a... more »

When nine eleven happened one of the most shocking things was that people found it so shocking. I was twenty one at the time, very politically aware and active in a time before intense social media, and had been learning about American involvement in the middle east and elsewhere. That someone had finally attacked America on American soil didn't come as a shock in the least. It was inevitable.

The media response was depressing. Instead of investigating what might have caused this by looking deeper into the problem they quickly settled on a consensus: these people were religious fanatics of an inherently violent religion and hated our freedom. The phrase they hate our freedom was repeated over and over again.

That idea was of course basically a lie. But it was the only response that could maintain the illusion that America was the greatest good in the world that had never done a single thing wrong to deserve any type of antagonism at all.

Part of critical thought is being critical of one's self and one's own ideas. It was this being applied to the Christian myths of our civilization that spawned secularism and atheism and lead to a society where science and reason were valued. It advanced us.

If we want to keep moving forward we need to question the political mythology that says we are persecuted innocents and look at starkly rational solutions to living in a global world. We need to reject the narrative that war is inevitable because in the end we the people are the ones who will suffer in that conflict.___

posted image

2016-01-29 15:37:07 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 4 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2016-01-26 16:28:26 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

I love how conservatives are bemoaning Trump for lacking nuanced principles and the education required to understand those principles properly.

Here is a party that has been working hard for decades to make sure the population isn't able to go these things, isn't able to think critically or beyond platitudes, now complaining what that type of idiotic approach is yielding. If they had of been spending that time actually presenting principled conservative thought instead of pandering to shroud religious groups and racists we wouldn't be where we are now.

Who knows. Maybe they'll turn a new leaf. Maybe they'll ditch the religious nuts and let them break off into their own party. It's about time America breaks away from being a two party totalitarian system and revives democracy. Sadly it may all have to come tumbling down first before this can happen.

"In a country with more than 300 million people, it is remarkable how obsessed the media have become with just one—Donald Trump. What is even more remarkable is that, after seven years of repeated disasters, both domestically and internationally, under a glib egomaniac in the White House, so many potential voters are turning to another glib egomaniac to be his successor." -- Thomas Sowell

"We can talk about whether he is a boor (“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body”), a creep (“If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her”), or a louse (he tried to bully an elderly woman, Vera Coking, out of her house in Atlantic City because it stood on a spot he wanted to use as a garage). But one thing about which there can be no debate is that Trump is no conservative—he’s simply playing one in the primaries. Call it unreality TV." -- Mona Charen

"He doesn’t know the Constitution, history, law, political philosophy, nuclear strategy, diplomacy, defense, economics beyond real estate, or even, despite his low-level-mafioso comportment, how ordinary people live. But trumping all this is a greater flaw presented as his chief strength. Governing a great nation in parlous times is far more than making “deals.”" -- Mark Helprin

"Let us, as conservatives, seek guidance from those we admire. The Federalist (No. 39) speaks of “that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.” Hasn’t Donald Trump been a votary merely of wealth rather than of freedom? Hasn’t he been animated by the art of the deal rather than by the art of self-government?" -- William Kristol

"Why is it unconscionable for Ted Cruz to take and repay a loan from Goldman Sachs to help win a tough Senate race but acceptable for Donald Trump to take money from George Soros? Why is vetting Trump, as we do any other candidate, considered “bashing”? Aren’t these fair questions?" -- Dana Loesch

"Trump beguiles us, defies the politically correct media, and bullies anyone who points out that the emperor has no clothes. None of that makes him a conservative who cherishes liberty. For decades, Trump has argued for big government. About health care he has said: “Everybody’s got to be covered” and “The government’s gonna pay for it.” He has called for boycotts of American companies he doesn’t like, told bureaucrats to use eminent domain to get him better deals on property he wanted to develop, and proudly proposed the largest tax increase in American history. Trump has also promised to use tariffs to punish companies that incur his disfavor. He offers grand plans for massive new spending but no serious proposals for spending cuts or entitlement reforms. These are not the ideas of a small-government conservative who understands markets. They are, instead, the ramblings of a liberal wannabe strongman who will use and abuse the power of the federal government to impose his ideas on the country." -- David McIntosh

"Worst of all, Trump’s brawling, blustery, mean-spirited public persona serves to associate conservatives with all the negative stereotypes that liberals have for decades attached to their opponents on the right." -- Michael Medved
"At a time when the nation is suffering under one of the most divisive and incompetent presidents in history, our people need positive, unifying leadership, not negative, destructive political rhetoric." -- Edwin Meese III

"Conservatives have a serious decision. Do we truly believe in our long-held principles and insist that politicians have records demonstrating fealty to them? Or are we willing to throw these principles away because an entertainer who has been a liberal Democrat for decades simply says some of the right things?" -- Katie Pavlich

"And they suspect, rightly, that the Chamber of Commerce will sell them down the river if it adds to the bottom line. All true, but it’s sad that this frustrated cohort now fixes on Trump as its savior. He presents himself as a Strong Man who promises to knock heads and make things right again. In this, he has a lot more in common with South American populist demagogues than with our tradition of political leaders." -- R. R. Reno

"The GOP base is clearly disgusted and looking for new leadership. Enter Donald Trump, not just with policy prescriptions that challenge the cynical GOP leadership but with an attitude of disdain for that leadership—precisely in line with the sentiment of the base. Many conservatives are relishing this, but ah, the rub. Trump might be the greatest charlatan of them all." -- L. Brent Bozell III___I love how conservatives are bemoaning Trump for lacking nuanced principles and the education required to understand those principles properly.

Here is a party that has been working hard for decades to make sure the population isn't able to go these things, isn't able to think critically or beyond platitudes, now complaining what that type of idiotic approach is yielding. If they had of been spending that time actually presenting principled conservative thought instead of pandering to shroud religious groups and racists we wouldn't be where we are now.

Who knows. Maybe they'll turn a new leaf. Maybe they'll ditch the religious nuts and let them break off into their own party. It's about time America breaks away from being a two party totalitarian system and revives democracy. Sadly it may all have to come tumbling down first before this can happen.

posted image

2016-01-24 19:41:41 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

I'm addicted to apps on my iPhone. 

I'm addicted to apps on my iPhone. ___

2016-01-24 19:25:37 (17 comments; 0 reshares; 23 +1s)Open 

I was raised a Catholic and I send my kids to a Catholic school to soak up the culture and because it's one of the best schools in the province. We're lucky enough to live in the district where young professionals try hard to get a house because it's almost as good as an expensive private school.

So my kids are being raised exposed to Catholic theology as a subject. My eleven year old is basically over the god idea as being true at this point. I teach them mythology, philosophy, and competitive religion at home so he's reasoned his way out of it. Just like santa.

My eight year old not so much. So I often raise philosophical questions to keep her thinking.

Yesterday at lunch we were playing a game asking questions about who the best super hero was, which comic book company was the most popular, which star wars was the best, and so on.

So I asked... more »

I was raised a Catholic and I send my kids to a Catholic school to soak up the culture and because it's one of the best schools in the province. We're lucky enough to live in the district where young professionals try hard to get a house because it's almost as good as an expensive private school.

So my kids are being raised exposed to Catholic theology as a subject. My eleven year old is basically over the god idea as being true at this point. I teach them mythology, philosophy, and competitive religion at home so he's reasoned his way out of it. Just like santa.

My eight year old not so much. So I often raise philosophical questions to keep her thinking.

Yesterday at lunch we were playing a game asking questions about who the best super hero was, which comic book company was the most popular, which star wars was the best, and so on.

So I asked them if god created the universe. My son didn't answer, wanting to see what my daughter would say, and I loved the logic behind her reply even though it was wrong.

She said it was god. So I asked her to explain. She quickly asked, "Does a car just drive itself out of thin air? No. So the universe would need someone to create it. Are you stupid?"

For an eight year old that's a pretty sharp answer. But I couldn't let it be. So I asked, "Well, if you're so smart, can you explain who created god? You just said cars don't drive out of thin air so that has to apply to gods too. So who created god?"

She just smiled and groaned. I could tell it was a look of oh shit he's completely right. We went back to questions about comics but I know the seed of logic was planted and in good time she would come to a sound conclusion on her own.

What's really telling though is while that type of argument is fine for an eight year old, there are still adults that cling to them, which is a really sad state of affairs. ___

posted image

2016-01-24 04:44:08 (11 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

Good god. What do people think happens in northern fresh water lakes and rivers? Every fish dies and then what? They magically reappear in the spring?

sounds legit___Good god. What do people think happens in northern fresh water lakes and rivers? Every fish dies and then what? They magically reappear in the spring?

posted image

2016-01-23 02:18:36 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s)Open 

What's inside a fire alarm? http://boingboing.net/2016/01/22/whats-inside-a-fire-alarm.html

What's inside a fire alarm? http://boingboing.net/2016/01/22/whats-inside-a-fire-alarm.html___

2016-01-22 02:09:09 (11 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s)Open 

Aggression is Forbidden. Fighting is permitted only in self-defence.

The Quranic verses on this are very clear. God repeats, "do not aggress", multiple times. Only if attacked, is one permitted to fight back. If the other party refrains from aggression and offers one peace, we are told to stop fighting.



And this is why that NAP is utter bullshit and amounts to nothing in practice. 

Aggression is Forbidden. Fighting is permitted only in self-defence.

The Quranic verses on this are very clear. God repeats, "do not aggress", multiple times. Only if attacked, is one permitted to fight back. If the other party refrains from aggression and offers one peace, we are told to stop fighting.



And this is why that NAP is utter bullshit and amounts to nothing in practice. ___

posted image

2016-01-21 20:36:58 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

Why are habits so hard to break? Getting hooked changes the brain, scientists find

New research by Duke University scientists suggests that a habit leaves a lasting mark on specific circuits in the brain, priming us to feed our cravings. Published online Jan. 21 in the journal Neuron, the research deepens scientists' understanding of how habits like sugar and other vices manifest in the brain and suggests new strategies for breaking them.

Why are habits so hard to break? Getting hooked changes the brain, scientists find

New research by Duke University scientists suggests that a habit leaves a lasting mark on specific circuits in the brain, priming us to feed our cravings. Published online Jan. 21 in the journal Neuron, the research deepens scientists' understanding of how habits like sugar and other vices manifest in the brain and suggests new strategies for breaking them.___

posted image

2016-01-21 15:19:16 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 1 +1s)Open 

http://tonyriches.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/george-orwells-writing-habits.html

http://tonyriches.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/george-orwells-writing-habits.html___

posted image

2016-01-21 15:18:58 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 3 +1s)Open 

How I would love for him to be alive today to comment on the current state of affairs.

George Orwell died #onthisday 1950___How I would love for him to be alive today to comment on the current state of affairs.

posted image

2016-01-19 12:58:11 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 2 +1s)Open 

Sponsor Syrian Refugee - Canada's top Google search http://aje.io/janw - @AntoniaZ

Sponsor Syrian Refugee - Canada's top Google search http://aje.io/janw - @AntoniaZ___

2016-01-19 00:23:10 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

So I want to play an interesting game with everyone here. Take the test, try to be honest, then post your result along with what you think about these two issues:

Donald Trump
Muslims 

So I want to play an interesting game with everyone here. Take the test, try to be honest, then post your result along with what you think about these two issues:

Donald Trump
Muslims ___

2016-01-19 00:22:38 (20 comments; 2 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

So I want to play an interesting game with everyone here. Take the test, try to be honest, then post your result along with what you think about these two issues:

Donald Trump
Muslims 

So I want to play an interesting game with everyone here. Take the test, try to be honest, then post your result along with what you think about these two issues:

Donald Trump
Muslims ___

posted image

2016-01-17 15:22:16 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 4 +1s)Open 

The Man in The High Castle

I binge-watched Season 1 on Amazon today, after being addicted to the pilot last year. Damn. It delivers. Everything about this production screams quality. You will not be able to stop watching episode after episode. Well done, gents!

#themanintheighcastle   #philipkdick   #amazonseries   #alternatehistory  

via/ huffingtonpost.com/lev-raphael/the-man-in-the-high-castl_b_8617100.html

The Man in The High Castle

I binge-watched Season 1 on Amazon today, after being addicted to the pilot last year. Damn. It delivers. Everything about this production screams quality. You will not be able to stop watching episode after episode. Well done, gents!

#themanintheighcastle   #philipkdick   #amazonseries   #alternatehistory  

via/ huffingtonpost.com/lev-raphael/the-man-in-the-high-castl_b_8617100.html___

posted image

2016-01-17 06:19:37 (0 comments; 1 reshares; 2 +1s)Open 

"The truth about Muhammad and Aisha:  Innocence of Muslims repeated the claim Muhammad was a paedophile, but the story is more complex and interesting than that" by Myriam Francois-Cerrah (+Myriam francois cerrah).

On one hand Muslim Apologists tend to claim that "times were different back then" as if that somehow justifies child molestation, while on the other hand the very same Muslim Apologists refuse to revise The Holy Qur'an to make it more modern and civilized by removing the hatred, the anger, the violence, the misogyny, the child molestation, and so much more that truly has no place in modern, progressive, civilized societies that value freedom and human rights.

[Caption with featured image:  "'The Qur’an says that marriage is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse.' Photograph: ShahMar... more »

"The truth about Muhammad and Aisha:  Innocence of Muslims repeated the claim Muhammad was a paedophile, but the story is more complex and interesting than that" by Myriam Francois-Cerrah (+Myriam francois cerrah).

On one hand Muslim Apologists tend to claim that "times were different back then" as if that somehow justifies child molestation, while on the other hand the very same Muslim Apologists refuse to revise The Holy Qur'an to make it more modern and civilized by removing the hatred, the anger, the violence, the misogyny, the child molestation, and so much more that truly has no place in modern, progressive, civilized societies that value freedom and human rights.

[Caption with featured image:  "'The Qur’an says that marriage is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse.' Photograph: Shah Marai/AFP/Getty Images."]

From the attached article...

-----
riting about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, the Orientalist scholar W Montgomery Watt wrote: "Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad." His quote seems all the more poignant in light of the Islamophobic film Innocence of Muslims, which has sparked riots from Yemen to Libya and which, among other slanders, depicts Muhammad as a paedophile.

This claim is a recurring one among critics of Islam, so its foundation deserves close scrutiny.

Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. They base this on a saying attributed to Aisha herself (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234), and the debate on this issue is further complicated by the fact that some Muslims believe this to be a historically accurate account. Although most Muslims would not consider marrying off their nine-year-old daughters, those who accept this saying argue that since the Qur'an states that marriage is void unless entered into by consenting adults, Aisha must have entered puberty early.

They point out that, in seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe: five centuries after Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, 33-year-old King John of England married 12-year-old Isabella of Angoulême.) Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha's age at marriage.

According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha's age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What's more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.

In addition, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha's young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur'an. While the Qur'an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha's age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19.

Because of this, it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was. What we do know is what the Qur'an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse. As the living embodiment of Islam, Muhammad's actions reflect the Qur'an's teachings on marriage, even if the actions of some Muslim regimes and individuals do not.

Sadly, in many countries, the imperatives motivating the marriage of young girls are typically economic. In others, they are political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia have both sought to use the saying concerning Aisha's age as a justification for lowering the legal age of marriage tells us a great deal about the patriarchal and oppressive nature of those regimes, and nothing about Muhammad, or the essential nature of Islam. The stridency of those who lend credence to these literalist interpretations by concurring with their warped view of Islam does not help those Muslims who seek to challenge these aberrations.

The Islamophobic depiction of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as motivated by misplaced desire fits within a broader Orientalist depiction of Muhammad as a philanderer. This idea dates back to the crusades. According to the academic Kecia Ali: "Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet's character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam."

[See attached article for the remaining paragraphs...]___

posted image

2016-01-16 20:56:13 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 3 +1s)Open 

The more I hear about this guy the less I like him. He's just not a very deep thinker and is ultimately doing more harm than good.

First of all it's an established psychological fact you can't change someone's belief by directly belittling their existing idea and calling them an idiot. All that does is make the person more entrenched. Kind of like how liberals screaming racism all the time hasn't done shit to actually reduce it.

To take this further look at highly secular countries like Canada and the Scandinavian nations. They didn't get there by having openly atheist movements where people started sporting tattoos, licence plates, and t shirts proclaiming their atheism. It had nothing to do with adopting an atheist identity. If anything it had to do with making religion a private thing.

The second thing is how irrational the arguments here are.... more »

The more I hear about this guy the less I like him. He's just not a very deep thinker and is ultimately doing more harm than good.

First of all it's an established psychological fact you can't change someone's belief by directly belittling their existing idea and calling them an idiot. All that does is make the person more entrenched. Kind of like how liberals screaming racism all the time hasn't done shit to actually reduce it.

To take this further look at highly secular countries like Canada and the Scandinavian nations. They didn't get there by having openly atheist movements where people started sporting tattoos, licence plates, and t shirts proclaiming their atheism. It had nothing to do with adopting an atheist identity. If anything it had to do with making religion a private thing.

The second thing is how irrational the arguments here are. Logical is like math. Equations have to balance. So here he says that good people just use religion as an excuse to do good, and would be good regardless, but then doesn't apply that to bad things. So if a religious person is doing a good thing it's never the religion causing it, but if a religious person does a bad thing it's always the religion that's to blame.

That just doesn't make a lick of sense. It's absolutely illogical and is a direct result of a dogmatic belief in the proposition that religion is evil. ___

posted image

2016-01-16 05:12:14 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

So Bill says:

The next president needs to be someone to calm down the American people “put Humpty Dumpty back together,” he said.

Then you'll likely not want to put a woman in charge. The reality is a big portion of America is going to have an even bigger problem with a woman in charge than they did with a black man. It's such a fucking stupid idea that it almost seems as if they want things to fail.

You can't force people to change. Did having a black president reduce racism? 

So Bill says:

The next president needs to be someone to calm down the American people “put Humpty Dumpty back together,” he said.

Then you'll likely not want to put a woman in charge. The reality is a big portion of America is going to have an even bigger problem with a woman in charge than they did with a black man. It's such a fucking stupid idea that it almost seems as if they want things to fail.

You can't force people to change. Did having a black president reduce racism? ___

posted image

2016-01-16 05:06:26 (40 comments; 0 reshares; 8 +1s)Open 

Well then. Dawkins seems to think Christianity isn't half bad. He's almost encouraging it here. He also seems keen on deism being a pretty good argument for god.

He's correct when he says there are no Christian suicide bombers, but they have been known to blow up buildings.

What do people think? Is Christianity not that bad? 

Well then. Dawkins seems to think Christianity isn't half bad. He's almost encouraging it here. He also seems keen on deism being a pretty good argument for god.

He's correct when he says there are no Christian suicide bombers, but they have been known to blow up buildings.

What do people think? Is Christianity not that bad? ___

posted image

2016-01-12 14:50:32 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

Phillips believes that the green left's anti-consumerist/pastoral view is more aesthetic than political: they don't want to stop consuming, they just want to stop consuming things that poor people like, and limit their consumption to labor-intensive items that are priced out of reach of most of the world. Material abundance is the end of want and immiseration, and it's what progressive activists have demanded for their brothers and sisters since ancient times.

Keep your scythe, the real green future is high-tech, democratic, and radical.___Phillips believes that the green left's anti-consumerist/pastoral view is more aesthetic than political: they don't want to stop consuming, they just want to stop consuming things that poor people like, and limit their consumption to labor-intensive items that are priced out of reach of most of the world. Material abundance is the end of want and immiseration, and it's what progressive activists have demanded for their brothers and sisters since ancient times.

posted image

2016-01-12 00:45:22 (4 comments; 0 reshares; 2 +1s)Open 

And this is why I argue over the definition of agnostic.

"If you can control the meaning of words..."___And this is why I argue over the definition of agnostic.

2016-01-11 23:58:11 (23 comments; 0 reshares; 4 +1s)Open 

I think I'll start arguing like the average American.

Guns deaths happen. That's why they're used in war. So Republicans need to stop saying guns are not capable of killing people. They are. 

I think I'll start arguing like the average American.

Guns deaths happen. That's why they're used in war. So Republicans need to stop saying guns are not capable of killing people. They are. ___

posted image

2016-01-10 22:23:09 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

"As TV and music and even publishing become the internet, the internet is becoming everything else — and it's taking so much of what seemed to make it special with it."

"As TV and music and even publishing become the internet, the internet is becoming everything else — and it's taking so much of what seemed to make it special with it."___

posted image

2016-01-10 15:27:10 (3 comments; 0 reshares; 2 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2016-01-09 21:27:16 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2016-01-09 01:38:37 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s)Open 

As part of the new year, I wanted to start a series of appetizer-style conversation starting videos entitled "why not X?".  These are not meant to be as exhaustive an effort as my Christmas video but hopefully not half-assed either.  They're meant to concisely state issues I have with adopting given positions as food for thought.  These are my sincere positions and I'm trying to get over the fact that in about a month I will hate them.

In this first video, I explain why I don't like JTB as a definition for knowledge and why I find reliabilism to be a more accurate definition for what it is we are attempting to refer to when we speak of knowledge. 

Some enjoy reading my posts more than watching my videos, often because they read when in public and often because I’m ugly. For those who can’t stand my face with their morning coffee, I offer the script(below th... more »

As part of the new year, I wanted to start a series of appetizer-style conversation starting videos entitled "why not X?".  These are not meant to be as exhaustive an effort as my Christmas video but hopefully not half-assed either.  They're meant to concisely state issues I have with adopting given positions as food for thought.  These are my sincere positions and I'm trying to get over the fact that in about a month I will hate them.

In this first video, I explain why I don't like JTB as a definition for knowledge and why I find reliabilism to be a more accurate definition for what it is we are attempting to refer to when we speak of knowledge. 

Some enjoy reading my posts more than watching my videos, often because they read when in public and often because I’m ugly. For those who can’t stand my face with their morning coffee, I offer the script (below the hashes).

############
I’ve been wanting to do a series of videos off of the question “Why not?”, and in this case I would like to address “Why not ‘justified true belief’ as a definition of knowledge?”

This topic came about when a fellow Great Debate community member asked me:
// What does it mean to use the term "I don't know". //

Before we get to that question, we need to address what it means TO KNOW.

The most commonly referenced definition for knowledge is justified true belief or JTB for short. This is Plato’s definition and generally a good placeholder for the purposes of conversation. With most having a familiarity with it, it is an easy grant for the sake of moving on to what you want to talk about.

So how does JTB work? It states that when you
a.) have a belief
b.) that is justified and
c.) that belief is actually true to the case
then, by definition, you have knowledge.

So let’s start with belief. A belief is simply a claim… it is an opinion, a proposition, an assertion, a declaration, a profession. it is what you think is the case, whatever that might be. So you could say “The cat is on the mat” and in actuality you are saying “I believe it is the case that a cat is on the mat.” Just as an aside, this is not to be confused with a fact. A belief is about a fact. A fact is an obtaining state of affairs. it is whatever is the case in reality. it is independent of our beliefs. It is the thing our beliefs attempt to correspond to. So for JTB, we start with a belief.

Okay…. Justification is constituted by the reasons and evidence by which you believe the belief was caused. It is an account or the causal story of how the belief is thought to have corresponded to what it is referencing. It can amount to a verification procedure for the belief such that someone else could know it to be the case were they to have follow the justification. If you listen to that carefully, in the JTB, ultimately the justification is “believed to have caused the belief”. It boils down a belief about the belief. This gets you into the KK problem, or the how you know THAT you know regress, but that’s not going to be a point of objection for me today. Moving on...

Alright… on to truth. There are several definitions for truth, but for brevity I’m going to focus just on the correspondence definition. it is simple and generally what I find individuals to mean with the exception of those who subscribe to a pragmatic theory.

In the correspondence theory, Truth is that which corresponds to the reality, whatever that might be. You have what is the case and you have your belief concerning what you think that is, and when they co-respond to each other, you have truth. Notice the word: co-respond. In the same way that a map is nothing like the territory and yet manages to be about the territory, your beliefs are nothing like what is the case and yet the two co-respond to each other. It is a mapping of reality, and when your map co-responds, you navigate without issue.

When you have all three of these conditions satisfied, under JTB, you would be in possession of knowledge. Just as a note, because it is often confused: your knowledge is a subset of your beliefs. It is constituted by those beliefs which satisfy JTB. They are still beliefs, but under JTB, they get a special earmark as something which you believe constitutes knowledge. These are the beliefs you refer to when you say “I know that the cat is on the mat” and what differentiates it from “I believe that the cat is on the mat”. Under JTB, in both cases you believe it, but in the case of knowledge, the belief has an asterisk where you are denoting the quality to which you feel the belief rises. You believe it is justified and true.

JTB definition was and still is widely used, but in the late 20th century, issues arose with this definition. In the 1960s, Edmund Gettier, a professor in philosophy, presented a series of counterexamples where all three conditions were satisfied and yet what was thought to be knowledge did not accurately reflect the state of affairs. These are known as Gettier cases or Gettier counterexamples.

There are numerous varieties of these examples, but I’ll offer one that I tend to use. Let’s say I drive home and stop at the gas station. I pay for the gas, getting 3 dollars in change from the attendant. As I get into my car, unbeknownst to me the money falls out of my wallet. I get home, put the wallet on my dresser and head to the kitchen. My daughter comes home and, realizing she owes me 3 dollars, decides to put it in my wallet. My son then comes in and says “Hey Dad, do you have 3 dollars I can borrow?” I say “Sure, it is in my wallet.” He says “How do you know that you have 3 dollars in your wallet?” I say “I just got home from the gas station and put the 3 dollars in change from the gas attendant into my wallet.” He gets the wallet and sure enough, there are 3 dollars.

In this case, I had a belief that there was 3 dollars, I had justification for thinking it the case that there was 3 dollars in my wallet, and it was in fact true that there was 3 dollars in my wallet. However, clearly I got lucky that I had 3 dollars in my wallet and none of what I believed was casually tied to 3 dollars my son found. It was a lucky coincidence.

Why is this an issue? Because knowledge serves a purpose. Knowledge constitutes the propositional correspondences we can trust for future interactions. Our beliefs map the territory so we can travel there safely. Where there is a breakdown of this nature, it is false positive nature is a problematic foundation for future interactions.

So there is something about this definition that is lacking. There are JTB+ theories which attempt to address these issues by adding additional conditions for justification, but these have been shown to cause failure in other ways and they have a feeling of being an ad hoc remedy to something which is fundamentally flawed.

So, if not JTB, what else? I subscribe to reliabilist definition of knowledge. Reliabilism has it is roots in the early 20th century but gained popularity in the 70s. Rather that justified true beliefs, it asserts a definition of reliably-produced true belief for knowledge. The conditions for truth and belief are the same as in the JTB definition, with belief being a proposition about reality and truth being that which corresponds to reality.

The difference comes in the form of justification not being an ingredient to knowledge. In it is place is a condition on the belief being in fact reliably produced.

This is a model for which knowledge hinges on objective facts within reality regarding how the belief was produced rather than subjective processes of justificatory evaluation. Justification is still critical to determining the level of confidence warranted by a belief, for persuasion of others and for making public assertions in discourse while wanting those positions to be considered rational, but it is not ingredient to knowledge itself.

This separates whether I have knowledge from my knowing it to be the case that I have knowledge. Why is this persuasive to me? Let me share a personal case.

My father had Alzheimer’s. As the disease became more advanced, my father was able to know that I was his son Bert, but would not be able to justify how it is that he knew I was his son Bert. In other words, he could not raise to awareness the justification for his belief. Under a JTB definition, my father would not know that I was Bert.

But then how would we characterize his utterance “This is my son Bert”? Clearly it is not a lucky guess. It is the truth and it was no accident that it he was caused to have this belief. The belief resides in him unchanged and it is actually the interactions which brought him to the belief which are caused by the disease to fail him. Interestingly, having had a time previously where he could justify that belief, he would have had knowledge with the very same proposition “that is my son Bert”. Nothing changed about the proposition. Within his mind, the proposition remained unchanged. So why would we say he no longer knew it? Simply because he lost track of how it is he knew it.

Lets consider a more common occasion that you may have experienced. Someone asks “Do you know what time the party is?” and you say “8PM”. They say “How do you know?” You reply “I think someone told me but I can’t recall. I just know that it is at 8PM”. In this case, you can’t raise to awareness how it is you came to the belief. The person you’re reporting to would have good reason to not trust you. But if it was the case that in the past someone did in fact tell you that the party was at 8PM, then that belief you hold is not luck and it is accurate. Were you asked the moment after first hearing it, you’d be able to give an account for how you knew it. So does the forgetting how you knew impact that the validity of the belief being the case?

If we go back to a map-making analogy, this would be to stand in the woods and map out the path, confirming distances by means of comparison, and upon returning to the same spot later, looking at the map but not remembering how it is the marks came to be confirmed. Would the mapping not still correspond to the territory? Is that not what we mean by knowledge? A reliably mapped landmark that corresponds to what is the case, independent of what we might think of it?

Under a reliably-produced true belief definition, that a belief is knowledge would be an objective fact within reality independent of any subjective opinion of the belief, including the opinion of the belief holder for or against it. Knowledge would be constituted by those beliefs which were in fact produced by a reliable interaction between what is the case and the belief-forming processes. In all of these cases, I find this to be a more persuasive definition for what it is we’d like to refer to when using the term knowledge. We want to refer to something whose facticity is independent of subjective evaluation. That you have knowledge or you don’t, and what you can be mistaken about is your belief that it is the case that you have it or don’t.

That we would know that we knew would be independent of whether we in fact knew. And so for myself, that is why not JTB as a definition of knowledge.___

posted image

2016-01-08 23:00:59 (0 comments; 0 reshares; 1 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2016-01-07 15:22:54 (5 comments; 0 reshares; 6 +1s)Open 

What we have here is a typical right wing American Christian that doesn't stick to any explicit religious trappings but maintains the same ideas.

I love how he mentions women might have it harder, might have to work harder than men, but the problem is feminists is they have a problem with this. Well yeah. If atheists had an observable problem with making it in life solely because they were atheists would it be wrong for them to try to fix that?

Also love that the big advantage he says women have is the ability to have children. How is that an advantage? Because when they engage in casual sex they have a risk of lifelong consequences? Because when they do get pregnant they are now bound for life to some man that might then turn out to be like this guy?

Notice how he thinks women should be proud to assume a traditional feminine role of submission and thinks feminists... more »

What we have here is a typical right wing American Christian that doesn't stick to any explicit religious trappings but maintains the same ideas.

I love how he mentions women might have it harder, might have to work harder than men, but the problem is feminists is they have a problem with this. Well yeah. If atheists had an observable problem with making it in life solely because they were atheists would it be wrong for them to try to fix that?

Also love that the big advantage he says women have is the ability to have children. How is that an advantage? Because when they engage in casual sex they have a risk of lifelong consequences? Because when they do get pregnant they are now bound for life to some man that might then turn out to be like this guy?

Notice how he thinks women should be proud to assume a traditional feminine role of submission and thinks feminists are shaming women who choose to adopt that persona. That's exactly the same argument coming from conservative Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on. Islam for example puts great emphasis on honoring mothers as a means to say even though you get stuck with all the work while the men go play, we honor you, so it's okay. Now get into your sack.

This guy shows why the idea removing religion from the equation is insufficient. If this guy called the shots women would be in the exact same spot as they were under religion. Except instead of Scripture to rationalize it there would just be this guy's common sense and argument that's just the way things should be. ___

posted image

2016-01-07 15:22:26 (5 comments; 2 reshares; 3 +1s)Open 

What we have here is a typical right wing American Christian that doesn't stick to any explicit religious trappings but maintains the same ideas.

I love how he mentions women might have it harder, might have to work harder than men, but the problem is feminists is they have a problem with this. Well yeah. If atheists had an observable problem with making it in life solely because they were atheists would it be wrong for them to try to fix that?

Also love that the big advantage he says women have is the ability to have children. How is that an advantage? Because when they engage in casual sex they have a risk of lifelong consequences? Because when they do get pregnant they are now bound for life to some man that might then turn out to be like this guy?

Notice how he thinks women should be proud to assume a traditional feminine role of submission and thinks feminists... more »

What we have here is a typical right wing American Christian that doesn't stick to any explicit religious trappings but maintains the same ideas.

I love how he mentions women might have it harder, might have to work harder than men, but the problem is feminists is they have a problem with this. Well yeah. If atheists had an observable problem with making it in life solely because they were atheists would it be wrong for them to try to fix that?

Also love that the big advantage he says women have is the ability to have children. How is that an advantage? Because when they engage in casual sex they have a risk of lifelong consequences? Because when they do get pregnant they are now bound for life to some man that might then turn out to be like this guy?

Notice how he thinks women should be proud to assume a traditional feminine role of submission and thinks feminists are shaming women who choose to adopt that persona. That's exactly the same argument coming from conservative Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on. Islam for example puts great emphasis on honoring mothers as a means to say even though you get stuck with all the work while the men go play, we honor you, so it's okay. Now get into your sack.

This guy shows why the idea removing religion from the equation is insufficient. If this guy called the shots women would be in the exact same spot as they were under religion. Except instead of Scripture to rationalize it there would just be this guy's common sense and argument that's just the way things should be. ___

posted image

2016-01-06 15:15:55 (3 comments; 0 reshares; 2 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2016-01-06 04:45:43 (1 comments; 1 reshares; 3 +1s)Open 

Wise words from Oliver Stone in that other social network. I quote his full text:

«2016

As the wars of the world rage on into 2016, the powder keg now appears to be ‘Syraq’ and not Ukraine. One day, perhaps too late, we as a country will recognize that some of our ‘friends’ are our ‘enemies,’ and some of our ‘enemies’ are really our allies. But as long as we pursue the politics of Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies, we’re squandering our life force in the creation of more and more chaos.-

In this dangerous election cycle, Republicans and Democrats continue to talk loudly of muscle, power, and the exercise thereof. But since Vietnam, it’s equally clear we’re scared of putting boots on the ground in any significant way (500,000 went to Vietnam), as casualties are anathema to the electorate, who prefer the Empire’s use of proxy armies, and covert/softpower.-

But a... more »

Wise words from Oliver Stone in that other social network. I quote his full text:

«2016

As the wars of the world rage on into 2016, the powder keg now appears to be ‘Syraq’ and not Ukraine. One day, perhaps too late, we as a country will recognize that some of our ‘friends’ are our ‘enemies,’ and some of our ‘enemies’ are really our allies. But as long as we pursue the politics of Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies, we’re squandering our life force in the creation of more and more chaos.-

In this dangerous election cycle, Republicans and Democrats continue to talk loudly of muscle, power, and the exercise thereof. But since Vietnam, it’s equally clear we’re scared of putting boots on the ground in any significant way (500,000 went to Vietnam), as casualties are anathema to the electorate, who prefer the Empire’s use of proxy armies, and covert/soft power.-

But as long as Russia continues to maintain and refine its nuclear capabilities (at about 1/5th our cost), those who actually think must understand we can’t force them into submission where their national interests are concerned, i.e., Eastern Ukraine, their borders with Europe, and terrorism against Russia, etc. Without that nuclear capacity, there is no doubt Russia would’ve rendered Edward Snowden to the United States long ago.-

Having suffered through two Chechen wars, the mass execution of schoolchildren at Beslan, the Moscow theatre attack, etc., and with the largest Muslim population in Europe, terrorism is a huge issue to Russia. How much closer is ‘Syraq’ to their borders than ours? Russia well knows the US has been supporting several of these terrorist groups against them, starting with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan back in the 1980s, and that we’re now supporting Turkey and Saudi Arabia and their proxy groups, including ISIS, as well as several other organizations. Throw in mercenary Chechens in several countries, fascist groups in Ukraine; as well as NATO-aided, right-wing groups in Poland, the Baltic Republics, etc. While we continue to play Red Riding Hood’s grandma-in-wolf’s-clothing, our media consistently denies we’re the Big Bad Wolf in this affair -- ‘who me?’ In response, Russia, despite sanctions against it and a withering propaganda onslaught, has only hardened its muscle back to 1941 levels. They’re ready for the worst. This is so dangerous. Why?

Below are 5 excellent analyses showing us the details of a US strategy that allows us to understand the frightening stakes of USA/EU/NATO against Russia/Iran/Syria, reaching a tipping point in a gigantic battle for energy resources -- the 21st century Mid-East resembling the 1914 Balkans; this could bloom, like a Ponzi scheme, into a war that ultimately engulfs the rest of the world.

The most unstable particle in this fury is this damned 2016 circus of an American election. Emotions are most easily excited, dumb things about our weaknesses and strengths are said and believed by the electorate. Nor has our media really given us insight into what the Russian point of view really is, although Putin has stated it on several occasions. We keep insisting it’s the restoration of the Cold War Russian Empire -- which Putin has repeatedly condemned, saying it didn’t work THEN and it won’t work NOW. He’s deplored the fallacy of Communism. Meanwhile, we don’t seem to understand or empathize with the true size of the terrorist threat against Russia.

We should be remembering in a time of possible all-out war, when most people seem to have forgotten what war is like, that it’s not Russia, the EU, the Mid-East, or Ukraine which have the most to lose. It’s the USA -- us. Most of us would lose our lives, and we’d certainly lose our economy, and generally a way of life that’s spoiled us since WW2. I keep wondering WHY do we keep pushing for “regime change” and dominion over other lands? We never back down, it seems. There’s no end to the zombie hunger for more control. Nothing changes in our system of ill will towards any resisters, going back to the Philippines in the early 1900s.

But am I naïve to think, as bad as our rhetoric and propaganda have gotten, that the military-industrial complex in our country is not so NUTS as to set off a real hot war -- when we have the most to lose? Remember the senselessness of World War I. Will we be asking ourselves the same question about ‘Syraq’ one day? How did this start? Why?

In closing, I pray that I turn out to be as wrong as I was about Ukraine at the end of 2014, and that we’ll all still be communicating at this time next year. Let's hope so... Let's hope sanity prevails in 2016.

Pepe Escobar, “You Want War? Russia is Ready for War,” Counterpunch. 
http://bit.ly/1TAiOAb

Pepe Escobar, “NATO’s got a brand-new (Syrian) bag,” RT.
http://bit.ly/1JpXgFX

Mike Whitney, “Putin Throws Down the Gauntlet,” Counterpunch.
http://bit.ly/225osQw

Robert Parry, “A Blind Eye Toward Turkey’s Crimes,” Consortium News.
http://bit.ly/1Ypk5jR

Ira Chernus, “Six Mistakes on the Road to Permanent War,” TomDispatch.
http://bit.ly/1Ur5LB3»___

posted image

2016-01-05 15:08:40 (1 comments; 0 reshares; 0 +1s)Open 

Fighting someone that you apparently lack a belief in existing is a bit absurd.

It's also a bit absurd to be selling anti theism as atheism. There is no lack of belief with this gentleman. He's an irrational strong as you get anti theist who has complete faith in the belief there is no god. 

Every Atheist Needs: Fighting God #atheist #atheism David Silverman___Fighting someone that you apparently lack a belief in existing is a bit absurd.

It's also a bit absurd to be selling anti theism as atheism. There is no lack of belief with this gentleman. He's an irrational strong as you get anti theist who has complete faith in the belief there is no god. 

Buttons

A special service of CircleCount.com is the following button.

The button shows the number of followers you have directly on a small button. You can add this button to your website, like the +1-Button of Google or the Like-Button of Facebook.






You can add this button directly in your website. For more information about the CircleCount Buttons and the description how to add them to another page click here.

Daniel VoisinTwitterFacebookCircloscope